From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8329 invoked by alias); 22 Jul 2010 11:50:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 8259 invoked by uid 48); 22 Jul 2010 11:50:17 -0000 Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:50:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100722115017.8258.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug bootstrap/39150] Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only i386-solaris*). In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "rob1weld at aol dot com" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-07/txt/msg02357.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #19 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2010-07-22 11:50 ------- (In reply to comment #10) > > Adding an additional 64-bit default configuration > > (like amd64-pc-solaris2* or whatever) doubles the testing burden on me for no > > real benefit. In fact, I believe that the sparcv9-sun-solaris2 configurations > > were a mistake and should be removed, rather than adding this for Solaris > > 2/x86, too. > While the advantages of sparc64-sun-solaris2.* are limited, I don't think we > should remove it now since it can handle more memory and 64-bit computing is > becoming the norm. > Similarly, I think adding a 64-bit compiler on x86 would be desirable. And it > would be faster than the 32-bit one because of the 64-bit ABI. As a matter of > fact, we already have the few required patches at AdaCore. Eric, here were my results when I tried a year and a half ago. Not too bad, actually fairly good for a first attempt: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-02/msg01526.html Rob -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39150