Mark Gordon wrote:
> 
> To be honest, I don't need processing power; I need something I can use
> to build binaries.  Cache is nice, but if the binaries build a bit
> slower, it doesn't matter that much to me.  Don't worry; I won't shame
> Sun with my benchmarks. ;-)
> 
> Still, it's probably going to be a few months before it happens, so I'll
> see what's on the market in a few months.
> 
> -Mark Gordon

Ah well, that's a different issue then now isn't it.  So, do you know if 
you will want to build binaries that are specifically targeted for the 
UltraSparc chip with VIS extensions or will backward compatibility to 
older Sparc chips be ok?  From what I know you can create binaries that 
are targeted thus : 

Really OLD Sparc V1:    Sun demand paged SPARC executable dynamically linked
      OLD Sparc V1 :    ELF 32-bit MSB executable SPARC Version 1, 
                            dynamically linked, not stripped
        UltraSparc :    ELF 32-bit MSB executable SPARC32PLUS Version 1, 
                            V8+ Required, UltraSPARC1 Extensions Required, 
                            dynamically linked, stripped
  UltraSparc 64bit :    ELF 64-bit MSB executable SPARCV9 Version 1, 
                            dynamically linked, not stripped

You can use either gcc or the Forte development tools ( $$ !! ) to generate 
the binaries for all of the above.  I can not remember the last time that I 
saw anyone create binaries for the original Sparc chip circa 1991 [ or 
there-about ].  The gcc compiler will not do a very good job with 64bit apps 
and you will need the Forte tools to do your work justice.  Everything else 
can be done on a rock bottom UltraSparc system.  I think that an old Ultra5 
will do nicely.

Dennis 

ps: I'm not sure what the binaries for the new SunFire chip will be like but 
I expect ELF 64-bit MSB executable SPARCV9 Version 2 or something like it.

Post a reply to this message