Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 2 May 2006 19:15:36 +0400
From:      "Alexey Karagodov" <karagodov@gmail.com>
To:        "Mikhail Teterin" <mi+kde@aldan.algebra.com>
Cc:        current@freebsd.org, Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au>, Mikhail Teterin <mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com>, stable@freebsd.org, Roland Smith <rsmith@xs4all.nl>
Subject:   Re: cc can't build 32-bit executables on amd64
Message-ID:  <c7aff4ef0605020815o397fcb65ue6fcc81994e10c8f@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <200605021101.57778@aldan>
References:  <200605011604.26507.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com> <20060501220414.GA74865@slackbox.xs4all.nl> <20060502095954.GA693@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <200605021101.57778@aldan>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
workaround i use: 32-bit jail on amd64 system ... not so bad ...

2006/5/2, Mikhail Teterin <mi+kde@aldan.algebra.com>:
>
> On Tuesday 02 May 2006 05:59, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> =3D But probably not as fast since it's using a generic 'C' core instead
> =3D of a hand-tweaked assembler core. I read Mikhail's comment as meaning
> =3D that it is possible to build non-trivial 32-bit executables on amd64,
> =3D there's just work still needed to make this work as a general case.
>
> Thanks, Peter. You are correct, that was my meaning.
>
> Interestingly, the assembler-optimized 32-bit routines made lame slower
> than
> the native 64-bit code in my experiments (one may wish to compare
> assembler
> vs. C lame on i386 too). But it all *worked*, which was the point...
>
>        -mi
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
>



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?c7aff4ef0605020815o397fcb65ue6fcc81994e10c8f>