Smalltalk › Pharo › Pharo Smalltalk Users

64 bit version

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

15 messages Options

Roelof

64 bit version

Hello,

Is there a 64 bit version of Pharo.
I use a 64 bit version without the 32 bit libraries so no multilib

Roelof

kilon.alios

Re: 64 bit version

no unfortunately there is no such thing. Fortunately most open source libraries out there still compile for 32 bit so you should not experience any major issues.

On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Roelof Wobben <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello,

Is there a 64 bit version of Pharo.
I use a 64 bit version without the 32 bit libraries so no multilib

Roelof

Roelof

Re: 64 bit version

Pity. Im using Frugalware which has pure 32 or pure 64 bit.
Then I need to download the 32 bit and install that one and ty to make Pharos work.

Roelof

kilon alios schreef op 29-3-2014 15:16:

no unfortunately there is no such thing. Fortunately most open source libraries out there still compile for 32 bit so you should not experience any major issues.

On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Roelof Wobben <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello,

Is there a 64 bit version of Pharo.
I use a 64 bit version without the 32 bit libraries so no multilib

Roelof

pharo4Stef@free.fr

Re: 64 bit version

In reply to this post by Roelof

no yet.
Planned for the end of the year.
Stef

> Hello,
>
> Is there a 64 bit version of Pharo.
> I use a 64 bit version without the 32 bit libraries so no multilib
>
> Roelof
>
>

kilon.alios

Re: 64 bit version

In reply to this post by Roelof

what "pure" means ? as far I know a lib can be either 64 or 32 bit , but not both. Yes you will need the 32 bit version to work it with pharo, of course you still going to need a FFI like nativeboost or to write a VM plugin to get it to work from inside Pharo.

On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Roelof Wobben <[hidden email]> wrote:

Pity. Im using Frugalware which has pure 32 or pure 64 bit.
Then I need to download the 32 bit and install that one and ty to make Pharos work.

Roelof

kilon alios schreef op 29-3-2014 15:16:

no unfortunately there is no such thing. Fortunately most open source libraries out there still compile for 32 bit so you should not experience any major issues.

On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Roelof Wobben <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello,

Is there a 64 bit version of Pharo.
I use a 64 bit version without the 32 bit libraries so no multilib

Roelof

Roelof

Re: 64 bit version

kilon alios schreef op 29-3-2014 16:07:
> what "pure" means ? as far I know a lib can be either 64 or 32 bit ,
> but not both. Yes you will need the 32 bit version to work it with
> pharo, of course you still going to need a FFI like nativeboost or to
> write a VM plugin to get it to work from inside Pharo.
>

With Pure I mean I do not have a multilib system so I have the 32 and
the 64 bit libraries.
I will download the 32 bit version and install it so I can install Pharo
on my linux system.

Roelof

Roelof

Re: 64 bit version

In reply to this post by pharo4Stef@free.fr

Pharo4Stef schreef op 29-3-2014 16:02:

> no yet.
> Planned for the end of the year.
> Stef
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Is there a 64 bit version of Pharo.
>> I use a 64 bit version without the 32 bit libraries so no multilib
>>
>> Roelof
>>
>>
>
>

Thanks,
then I have to be patience to run Smalltalk on my 64 bit box.

Roelof

Sergi Reyner

Re: 64 bit version

2014-03-29 16:11 GMT+00:00 Roelof Wobben <[hidden email]>:

Thanks,
then I have to be patience to run Smalltalk on my 64 bit box.

Just set up a 32 bit installation inside a VM! :)

Cheers,

Sergi

Tudor Girba-2

Re: 64 bit version

In reply to this post by pharo4Stef@free.fr

That would be a very nice Christmas present! :)

Doru

On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Pharo4Stef <[hidden email]> wrote:

no yet.
Planned for the end of the year.
Stef

> Hello,
>
> Is there a 64 bit version of Pharo.
> I use a 64 bit version without the 32 bit libraries so no multilib
>
> Roelof
>
>

www.tudorgirba.com

"Every thing has its own flow"

pharo4Stef@free.fr

Re: 64 bit version

In reply to this post by Roelof

Pity.

You know there is no magic powder. We are already really grateful that eliot is pushing the vm work.

Esteban will help on the 64 bits and clement probably too or spur and new bytecodes plus language side optimisations. If we could pay 3 full time engineers in the future… but this is not the case.

Im using Frugalware which has pure 32 or pure 64 bit.
Then I need to download the 32 bit and install that one and ty to make Pharos work.

Roelof

kilon alios schreef op 29-3-2014 15:16:

no unfortunately there is no such thing. Fortunately most open source libraries out there still compile for 32 bit so you should not experience any major issues.

On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Roelof Wobben <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello,

Is there a 64 bit version of Pharo.
I use a 64 bit version without the 32 bit libraries so no multilib

Roelof

Roelof

Re: 64 bit version

Pharo4Stef schreef op 29-3-2014 21:07:

Pity.

You know there is no magic powder. We are already really grateful that eliot is pushing the vm work.

Esteban will help on the 64 bits and clement probably too or spur and new bytecodes plus language side optimisations. If we could pay 3 full time engineers in the future… but this is not the case.

I know that and it's not that i think the developer do a bad job.
It's more a expresiion of my feeling.

Roelof

pharo4Stef@free.fr

Re: 64 bit version

On 29 Mar 2014, at 21:16, Roelof Wobben <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Pharo4Stef schreef op 29-3-2014 21:07:
>>
>>
>>> Pity.
>>
>> You know there is no magic powder. We are already really grateful that eliot is pushing the vm work.
>> Esteban will help on the 64 bits and clement probably too or spur and new bytecodes plus language side optimisations. If we could pay 3 full time engineers in the future… but this is not the case.
>>
>
> I know that and it's not that i think the developer do a bad job.
> It's more a expresiion of my feeling.

Ok then I share the same feeling :)

>
> Roelof
>

Clément Béra

Re: 64 bit version

Hey,

For 64 bits Spur is a big step forward. For Christmas you should have at least the stack VM in 64bits. The JIT may take a bit longer to port. Esteban and Eliot will work on that starting from May.

There's also the solution to compile the VM in 64bits with a 32bits runtime (I think FFI does not work, but the VM works in 64bits environment, as gettimothy posted on vm-dev).

2014-03-29 13:18 GMT-07:00 Pharo4Stef <[hidden email]>:

On 29 Mar 2014, at 21:16, Roelof Wobben <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Pharo4Stef schreef op 29-3-2014 21:07:
>>
>>
>>> Pity.
>>
>> You know there is no magic powder. We are already really grateful that eliot is pushing the vm work.
>> Esteban will help on the 64 bits and clement probably too or spur and new bytecodes plus language side optimisations. If we could pay 3 full time engineers in the future… but this is not the case.
>>
>
> I know that and it's not that i think the developer do a bad job.
> It's more a expresiion of my feeling.

Ok then I share the same feeling :)

>
> Roelof
>

philippeback

Re: 64 bit version

How would that work?
Would this be a 32 bit Object memory and engine compiled in 64bit mode?
How is the code amended to make that possible?
Is there a source tree somewhere?

There are "int"s all over the place, so, how do we handle this?

For the Slang part it appears doable. For the support code, especially Windows, it looks harder.

TIA
Phil

Le 2 avr. 2014 01:07, "Clément Bera" <[hidden email]> a écrit :

Hey,

For 64 bits Spur is a big step forward. For Christmas you should have at least the stack VM in 64bits. The JIT may take a bit longer to port. Esteban and Eliot will work on that starting from May.

There's also the solution to compile the VM in 64bits with a 32bits runtime (I think FFI does not work, but the VM works in 64bits environment, as gettimothy posted on vm-dev).

2014-03-29 13:18 GMT-07:00 Pharo4Stef <[hidden email]>:

On 29 Mar 2014, at 21:16, Roelof Wobben <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Pharo4Stef schreef op 29-3-2014 21:07:
>>
>>
>>> Pity.
>>
>> You know there is no magic powder. We are already really grateful that eliot is pushing the vm work.
>> Esteban will help on the 64 bits and clement probably too or spur and new bytecodes plus language side optimisations. If we could pay 3 full time engineers in the future… but this is not the case.
>>
>
> I know that and it's not that i think the developer do a bad job.
> It's more a expresiion of my feeling.

Ok then I share the same feeling :)

>
> Roelof
>

Andres Valloud-4

Re: 64 bit version

And in Windows land, "long" is 32 bits even for 64 bit apps...

Even after you're done with the VM part, someone will have to go audit
all the external interfaces and make sure they really follow the manual.

On 4/1/14 21:24 , [hidden email] wrote:

> How would that work?
> Would this be a 32 bit Object memory and engine compiled in 64bit mode?
> How is the code amended to make that possible?
> Is there a source tree somewhere?
>
> There are "int"s all over the place, so, how do we handle this?
>
> For the Slang part it appears doable. For the support code, especially
> Windows, it looks harder.
>
> TIA
> Phil
>
> Le 2 avr. 2014 01:07, "Clément Bera" <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> a écrit :
>
> Hey,
>
> For 64 bits Spur is a big step forward. For Christmas you should
> have at least the stack VM in 64bits. The JIT may take a bit longer
> to port. Esteban and Eliot will work on that starting from May.
>
> There's also the solution to compile the VM in 64bits with a 32bits
> runtime (I think FFI does not work, but the VM works in 64bits
> environment, as gettimothy posted on vm-dev).
>
>
> 2014-03-29 13:18 GMT-07:00 Pharo4Stef <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
>
>
> On 29 Mar 2014, at 21:16, Roelof Wobben <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> > Pharo4Stef schreef op 29-3-2014 21:07:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Pity.
> >>
> >> You know there is no magic powder. We are already really
> grateful that eliot is pushing the vm work.
> >> Esteban will help on the 64 bits and clement probably too or
> spur and new bytecodes plus language side optimisations. If we
> could pay 3 full time engineers in the future… but this is not
> the case.
> >>
> >
> > I know that and it's not that i think the developer do a bad job.
> > It's more a expresiion of my feeling.
>
> Ok then I share the same feeling :)
>
> >
> > Roelof
> >
>
>
>