Re: Quick try at building 64-bit on OSX 10.8.3
HI Jorge, Well, x64 sucks, no surprise here, but not as much as x86. Perhaps a good strategy here would be to use one of the C calling registers (%r9 for instance) as a preloaded NIL. Restoring that value after calling C Surely %r9 could be freed for general purposes. I don't remember if that would solve any problem. Why do you think of NIL especially? In fact, normal assembly already works well for position-independent code (e.g. the shared 'ht' and 'ext' libraries are always built that way). IIRC, there were nasty details with some core runtime code, but I don't want to dig into that again. ♪♫ Alex -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
Re: Quick try at building 64-bit on OSX 10.8.3
On May 25, 2013, at 9:22 AM, Alexander Burger a...@software-lab.de wrote: HI Jorge, Well, x64 sucks, no surprise here, but not as much as x86. Perhaps a good strategy here would be to use one of the C calling registers (%r9 for instance) as a preloaded NIL. Restoring that value after calling C Surely %r9 could be freed for general purposes. I don't remember if that would solve any problem. Why do you think of NIL especially? You're right, upon deeper inspection it seems it doesn't solve any problem, it just postpones it. -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
Re: Quick try at building 64-bit on OSX 10.8.3
Hi Jorge, A quick question, what's the status of the *FPic variant on Linux? Is it working? If you mean the 64-bit version: Sorry, not at all ;-) If it works properly, I guess I could get it running on OSX as well when I find some spare time...-- That would be great! I must say that I gave up on that, see e.g. http://www.mail-archive.com/picolisp@software-lab.de/msg03816.html ♪♫ Alex -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
Re: Quick try at building 64-bit on OSX 10.8.3
Hi Alex, On May 24, 2013, at 10:49 AM, Alexander Burger a...@software-lab.de wrote: If it works properly, I guess I could get it running on OSX as well when I find some spare time...-- That would be great! I must say that I gave up on that, see e.g. http://www.mail-archive.com/picolisp@software-lab.de/msg03816.html Well, x64 sucks, no surprise here, but not as much as x86. Perhaps a good strategy here would be to use one of the C calling registers (%r9 for instance) as a preloaded NIL. Restoring that value after calling C shouldn't be much of a problem and would probably make code cleaner and faster. I've done some preliminary experiments with that and it looks promising. What do you think of such approach? -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
Re: Quick try at building 64-bit on OSX 10.8.3
Hi Jorge, Ok, if that's the problem this is nicer… Does it compile without warnings on your 32-bit system? Yes. Great! That's better. I didn't know about 'uintptr_t', that's exactly what we need here. Thanks! So let's stay with this :) ♪♫ Alex -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
Re: Quick try at building 64-bit on OSX 10.8.3
Hi, A quick question, what's the status of the *FPic variant on Linux? Is it working? If it works properly, I guess I could get it running on OSX as well when I find some spare time...-- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
Quick try at building 64-bit on OSX 10.8.3
Hi, I've just installed OSX 10.8.3, Xcode 4.6.2 and Command Line Tools (make, gcc, ...) on one of my Macs (but no Java yet), and I wanted to see if something magical have happened that would make it possible for me to build 64-bit PicoLisp, so I did the (cd src64; make). I then got this: No Java runtime present, requesting install. make: *** [emu.base.c] Error 1 A dialog box popped up asking if I wanted to install a Java SE 6 runtime. As I'm not very convinced that such a Java SE 6 runtime would give me the 64-bit PicoLisp, I have not accepted that offer yet. Am I wrong? ;-) /Jon -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
Re: Quick try at building 64-bit on OSX 10.8.3
Hi Jon, to see if something magical have happened that would make it possible for me to build 64-bit PicoLisp, so I did the (cd src64; ... runtime. As I'm not very convinced that such a Java SE 6 runtime would give me the 64-bit PicoLisp, I have not accepted that offer yet. Am I wrong? ;-) If you install Java, you can cross-assemble PicoLisp via ErsatzLisp. This is usually not necessary, because you might as well download the pre-assembled '*.s'-files. BUT: In case of the Mac, both approaches won't work, as the Mac's a.out-format is still not supported (you know .. ye old problems). So better don't install Java ;-) ♪♫ Alex -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
Re: Quick try at building 64-bit on OSX 10.8.3
I tried to build the emu version on OSX and it failed. Here is the culprit line: emu.patch Description: Binary data Regards, Jorge On May 22, 2013, at 5:24 PM, Alexander Burger a...@software-lab.de wrote: Hi Jon, to see if something magical have happened that would make it possible for me to build 64-bit PicoLisp, so I did the (cd src64; ... runtime. As I'm not very convinced that such a Java SE 6 runtime would give me the 64-bit PicoLisp, I have not accepted that offer yet. Am I wrong? ;-) If you install Java, you can cross-assemble PicoLisp via ErsatzLisp. This is usually not necessary, because you might as well download the pre-assembled '*.s'-files. BUT: In case of the Mac, both approaches won't work, as the Mac's a.out-format is still not supported (you know .. ye old problems). So better don't install Java ;-) ♪♫ Alex -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
Re: Quick try at building 64-bit on OSX 10.8.3
Hi Jorge, I tried to build the emu version on OSX and it failed. Here is the culprit line: Thanks! Unfortunately, it is not so easy, because then you get a warning on 32-bit systems: cast from pointer to integer of different size [-Wpointer-to-int-cast] So for 32-bits, we must still first cast to an uint32_t. I'd say we change it to: ... (p (if *Bits64 (_genCC A.n = (uint64_t)(uint8_t*)@1(@2);@3) (_genCC A.n = (uint64_t)(uint32_t)(uint8_t*)@1(@2);@3) ) ) ... Does this work for you? If so, I'll put it into the release. ♪♫ Alex -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
Re: Quick try at building 64-bit on OSX 10.8.3
On May 22, 2013, at 8:19 PM, Alexander Burger a...@software-lab.de wrote: Hi Jorge, I tried to build the emu version on OSX and it failed. Here is the culprit line: Thanks! Unfortunately, it is not so easy, because then you get a warning on 32-bit systems: cast from pointer to integer of different size [-Wpointer-to-int-cast] So for 32-bits, we must still first cast to an uint32_t. I'd say we change it to: ... (p (if *Bits64 (_genCC A.n = (uint64_t)(uint8_t*)@1(@2);@3) (_genCC A.n = (uint64_t)(uint32_t)(uint8_t*)@1(@2);@3) ) ) ... Does this work for you? If so, I'll put it into the release. Ok, if that's the problem this is nicer… Does it compile without warnings on your 32-bit system? emu2.patch Description: Binary data
