On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, Brad Knowles wrote: > At 12:22 PM -0800 2004/03/24, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > who cares? > > > > On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, David O'Brien wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 09:01:11PM -0700, Scott Long wrote: > >> > Let's get basic functionality woring on x86 and amd64 before we start > >> > diverging into optimization strategies. > >> > >> Uh, what about basic functionalty on Sparc64 and Alpha? > > Well, it depends. Would things be broken for SPARC64, or would > it just not have TLS (which could presumably be added later)? it would just mean that you could not do TLS.. umm I actually forget the state of Sparc KSE support now. we were waiting for help on something but I never heard if we got it.. I guess Dan would know. > > If things would be broken for SPARC64, then I would be very > disappointed to be unable to get my Ultra 10 clones up and working in > the near future. > > -- > Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles_at_skynet.be> > > "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary > safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." > -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. > > GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ > !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) > tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) >Received on Wed Mar 24 2004 - 12:14:27 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:48 UTC