Alexander Graf wrote:
I believe the 5% performance hit
that goes with them is no real problem, as most people should be using
x86_64 nowadays anyway.
*Boggle*! x86_64 is only a few years old, and cheap low-power x86_64
laptops are relatively recent.
-- Jamie
Jamie Lokier wrote:
Alexander Graf wrote:
I believe the 5% performance hit
that goes with them is no real problem, as most people should be using
x86_64 nowadays anyway.
*Boggle*! x86_64 is only a few years old, and cheap low-power x86_64
laptops are relatively recent.
--
Hi,
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Alexander Graf wrote:
Jamie Lokier wrote:
Alexander Graf wrote:
I believe the 5% performance hit that goes with them is no real
problem, as most people should be using x86_64 nowadays anyway.
*Boggle*! x86_64 is only a few years old, and cheap low-power
Am 15.01.2008 um 17:32 schrieb Alexander Graf:
Jamie Lokier wrote:
Alexander Graf wrote:
I believe the 5% performance hit
that goes with them is no real problem, as most people should be
using
x86_64 nowadays anyway.
*Boggle*! x86_64 is only a few years old, and cheap low-power
On Jan 15, 2008, at 6:30 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
Am 15.01.2008 um 17:32 schrieb Alexander Graf:
Jamie Lokier wrote:
Alexander Graf wrote:
I believe the 5% performance hit
that goes with them is no real problem, as most people should be
using
x86_64 nowadays anyway.
*Boggle*!
On Jan 15, 2008, at 6:50 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On Jan 15, 2008, at 6:30 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
Am 15.01.2008 um 17:32 schrieb Alexander Graf:
Jamie Lokier wrote:
Alexander Graf wrote:
I believe the 5% performance hit
that goes with them is no real problem, as most people should
Alexander Graf wrote:
Jamie Lokier wrote:
Alexander Graf wrote:
I believe the 5% performance hit
that goes with them is no real problem, as most people should be using
x86_64 nowadays anyway.
*Boggle*! x86_64 is only a few years old, and cheap low-power x86_64
laptops are
On Jan 15, 2008, at 7:23 PM, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Alexander Graf wrote:
[snip]
I was saying let's finally make qemu gcc4-save, so we can drop this
gcc3 dependency. The only platform that might get a performance hit
from
that is i386 and I was trying to show why a small performance hit
on
Am 15.01.2008 um 18:50 schrieb Alexander Graf:
On Jan 15, 2008, at 6:30 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
Am 15.01.2008 um 17:32 schrieb Alexander Graf:
Jamie Lokier wrote:
Alexander Graf wrote:
I believe the 5% performance hit
that goes with them is no real problem, as most people should be
On Jan 14, 2008, at 12:43 AM, Mike Kronenberg wrote:
Looks like I'm a little late for the party, as always :) .
I really encourage everyone to work towards a gcc4.x solution for OS
X.
I just read and tried Alexanders x86_64 patch, as I finished our
x86_32.
If we could reach an out of
Alex,
You'll find the patches at [1]
It's basically an adaption of Pauls, Gwenoles and the Qs gcc4 OS X
x86 patches.
I'd rather go with Michael Matz's gcc4 patches. They look more sane
and clean to me than Gwenoles do and I believe the 5% performance
hit that goes with them is no real
Looks like I'm a little late for the party, as always :) .
I really encourage everyone to work towards a gcc4.x solution for OS X.
I just read and tried Alexanders x86_64 patch, as I finished our x86_32.
If we could reach an out of the box solution for OS X, that would be
great!
You'll find
12 matches
Mail list logo
