[Gc] Re: questions on atomic_ops
dennis.sidharta at gmail.com
Wed Jan 6 07:34:45 PST 2010
Dear Mr. Maidanski:
I just checked out the latest snapshot from CVS, and it's now working
splendidly! Yup, _M_X64 is defined.
You're right, I probably confused the alphabet soup a bit. I've always
thought x86_64 is the instruction set name which is implemented by
intel 64 and amd 64, and that x64 is just short for x86_64, and IA64
is a totally another beast. I'll have to do some more reading.
2010/1/6 Ivan Maidanski <ivmai at mail.ru>:
> Dennis Sidharta <dennis.sidharta at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear Mr. Maidanski:
>> I found your email address from the atomic_ops' ChangeLog. I hope you
>> don't mind me emailing you directly as you seem to be the most recent
>> active committer to the project.
>> I have a question regarding using atomic_ops on intel-64-bit Windows:
>> 64-bit intel on Windows doesn't seem to be supported, is this correct?
> There are 2 "intel-64-bit" Windows platforms - IA-64 (ia64) and AMD64 (X64, x86_64). The both are supported by the recent atomic_ops (v7.2alpha4) if GCC is compiler is used; for Visual Studio - only AMD64 is supported.
>> However, from my limited knowledge of 64-bit windows, Windows seems to
>> be using the same binary regardless of the underlying processor, and
> If I understand you correctly, you mean Intel X64 == AMD64.
>> so, I defined _AMD64_ anyway, and my simple application seems to be
>> working correctly. Do you think this is safe?
> I see you problem: you are using some version of VS 2005 which doesn't define _AMD64_ (but, anyway, defines _M_X64), right? If so, you can either:
> - use -D_AMD64_ (it is safe); or
> - fetch the latest libatomic_ops snapshot from the BDWGC CVS (I fixed this issue on 2009-12-17).
>> Thank you very much for your attention! I'm looking forward to your reply.
>> Sincerely yours,
"Magnificat anima mea Dominum. Et exsultavit
spiritus meus in Deo salutari meo."
-- Luke 1 : 46, 47
More information about the Gc