From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christopher Nielsen To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] ports ... Message-ID: <20030624135303.GX7193@cassie.foobarbaz.net> References: <20030605045955.GC73958@cassie.foobarbaz.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 06:53:03 -0700 Topicbox-Message-UUID: d9101910-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 09:18:21AM -0400, David Presotto wrote: > It would be work to move to 64 bit pointers. Not infinite > though. The reliance is more on ulong and pointer being > the same size. If they're both 64 bits, it'll be pretty > easy. The truly hard part is changing the compiler and > debugging it afterwards. If you have to simultaneously > rewrite a compiler and do a port, its much easier to have > multiple people. Taking a break from coding something else, I did a tiny bit of research. All of amd64, alpha, and sparc64 have ulong and pointer being 64-bit on all the platforms I surveyed. That would make the part about reliance on ulong and pointer being 64-bit a non-issue. Of course, there are the other hurdles... :) -- Christopher Nielsen "They who can give up essential liberty for temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin