On 4 February 2011 02:35, Steve Severance st...@medwizard.net wrote:
Wholly support moving OSX to x64. x86 should be supported only on a
best effort basis for legacy.
Moving from x86 to x64 has advantages and disadvantages from my POV. Advantages:
* Able to address more memory
* More
From: Max Bolingbroke batterseapo...@hotmail.com
On 4 February 2011 02:35, Steve Severance st...@medwizard.net wrote:
Wholly support moving OSX to x64. x86 should be supported only on a
best effort basis for legacy.
Moving from x86 to x64 has advantages and disadvantages from my POV.
Steve Severance st...@medwizard.net wrote:
Moving from x86 to x64 has advantages and disadvantages from my POV.
Advantages:
* Able to address more memory
* More registers for code generation
* Haskell dependencies wouldn't need to be built for x86 on Snow
Leopard (though if we swapped
I originally posted this on haskell-GHC-users, but was curious how the wider
community felt.
The last 32-bit, Intel Mac was the Mac Mini, discontinued in August 2007. The
bulk of them were discontinued in 2006, along with PowerPC Macs. Does it make
sense to relegate OSX x86_64 to community
On 2/3/11 10:48 AM, Max Cantor wrote:
Does it make sense to relegate OSX x86_64 to community status
while the 32-bit version is considered a supported platform?
I'm not sure I can make sense of what you mean here. Given the preamble,
I'd guess you're asking whether we should make x86_64 the
On 4/02/2011, at 2:14 PM, wren ng thornton wrote:
On 2/3/11 10:48 AM, Max Cantor wrote:
Does it make sense to relegate OSX x86_64 to community status
while the 32-bit version is considered a supported platform?
I'm not sure I can make sense of what you mean here. Given the preamble, I'd
I'm not sure I can make sense of what you mean here. Given the preamble, I'd
guess you're asking whether we should make x86_64 the targeted architecture
for OSX support, and reclassify 32-bit OSX to unsupported or hopefully it
still works status. (But in that case, it's the 32-bit which
Max Cantor wrote:
someone? wrote:
I think the original poster is saying that the targeted architecture for OS X
support
should be the architecture that OS X assumes by default, and these days that's
x86_64.
That sounds reasonable to me. The big caveat is that OSX = 10.5.8
10.6 should
Doesn't 10.5.x have the ability to generate and run 64-bit binaries?
mc
On Feb 4, 2011, at 10:19 AM, wren ng thornton wrote:
Max Cantor wrote:
someone? wrote:
I think the original poster is saying that the targeted architecture for OS
X support
should be the architecture that OS X assumes
Wholly support moving OSX to x64. x86 should be supported only on a
best effort basis for legacy.
Steve
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 6:28 PM, Max Cantor mxcan...@gmail.com wrote:
Doesn't 10.5.x have the ability to generate and run 64-bit binaries?
mc
On Feb 4, 2011, at 10:19 AM, wren ng thornton
On 2/3/11 9:28 PM, Max Cantor wrote:
Doesn't 10.5.x have the ability to generate and run 64-bit binaries?
Yes, it does. But it defaults to 32-bit as I recall. Richard O'Keefe
suggested a general practice of targeting the architecture considered
default by the operating system. That's a good
On Feb 3, 2011, at 5:55 PM, Max Cantor wrote:
Yes. I'm saying that I believe that OSX x86_64 should be the officially
supported platform instead of 32-bit x86 with all the associated guarantees
and assurances. I wanted to see how people felt about that.
I don't think this is such a good
12 matches
Mail list logo
