On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 08:37:13AM -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote:
> Perhaps the MIME fixes in the DCC client code are significant. The
> graphs of the DCC servers of the organziations that installed the new
> version yesterday or last night are showing better spam detection rates.
Thanks, Vernon, that's good news. I've been seeing lower rejection
rates lately. I just thought that the spammers had given up on us.
> > From: Gary Mills
>
> > It's a difference in philosophy.
>
> It looks more like difference in levels of confusion. Even without the
> gcc vs. Sun Studio (or whatever it's called) conflicts in compiler
> options, Sun's zillions of -xarch settings show a fundamental lack of
> clarity of intentions. Or perhaps internal conflicts on whether
> the costs of 64-bit pointers and numbers are worth their benefits.
That confusion has just been cleared up, in the upcoming release of
Sun's compilers:
http://blogs.sun.com/quenelle/entry/goodbye_xarch_amd64_hello_m64
They're free, by the way.
> I've long since consciously chosen to not worry about making the DCC
> ./configure stuff friendly to cross compiling. I think cross compiling
> is too hard. I'm glad if it works, but make no promises.
With Solaris, it's common practice to compile software on a Solaris 8
machine but run it on a Solaris 11 machine. Sun guarantees upward
compatibility. This is the recommended way of producing binary
software bundles.
> I think in the next release I'll
> - only test -m64, etc when there -m32, -m64, nad -xarch are not in the
> environment CFLAGS
> - change the test program that ./configure compiles and runs to fail if
> sizeof(off_t) and size(void*) are not equal to 8.
I built that next release today. It built cleanly, with no change to
my normal configure command.
--
-Gary Mills- -Unix Support- -U of M Academic Computing and Networking-
_______________________________________________
DCC mailing list [email protected]
http://www.rhyolite.com/mailman/listinfo/dcc
