On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 08:23:22PM -0700, David Brown wrote:
> Yeah seems that alternative compilers like pathscale don't work so
> well with libhugetlbfs and code segments. I'm currently trying to get
> intel and portland group compilers a test and we'll see what happens
> with them.
With the new linking method, I would have thought using another
compiler to build .o files, then using the GNU linker would stand at
least a reasonable chance of working. Depending on how the
optimization works, this might lose a lot of performance, but it could
be worth a shot at least.
Getting it to worth with another linker could be anywhere between easy
and impossible depending on whether that linker has suitable options
to alter the segment alignment.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
Libhugetlbfs-devel mailing list
Libhugetlbfs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libhugetlbfs-devel
