Subject: Re: benefits for using sparc64 rather than sparc
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Martin Husemann <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 02/16/2006 11:22:48
On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 09:10:04PM +0000, email@example.com wrote:
> What about supplying '-mcpu=ultrasparc' flags to gcc? It should compile 32-bit
> binaries, but with UltraSparc extensions. There are problems with X sources in
> NetBSD's source tree when building 32-bit sparc port with '-mcpu=ultrasparc',
> but '-mcpu=v9' seems to work.
Are you sure this problems are still there? I fixed some "shift a 32 bit
value left by >= 32 bits" problme in gcc quite some time ago. If you still
see problems, please send-pr them.
For the X server, I'm not sure what the state of sparc vs. XFree is - Michael,
can we build the XFree server and modules additionaly on sparc or will this