| 1 |
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 17:31:14 +0100 |
| 2 |
Sebastian Redl <sebastian.redl@×××××××××××.at> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> >If I say something wrong anyone please correct me! Thanks. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> Well, I disagree that the code needs a full rewrite. Why? All it needs |
| 7 |
> is correcting all places where it attempts to store pointers in 32-bit |
| 8 |
> variables. Admittedly, in the core of UNO this might happen a LOT (due |
| 9 |
> to its nature it does a lot of direct memory manipulation), but there's |
| 10 |
> no real reason why it should be re-written from scratch. |
| 11 |
> If the UNO runtime violated other portability issues (such as code |
| 12 |
> execution protection), it wouldn't run at all in 64-bit mode, perhaps |
| 13 |
> not even when compiled as 32-bit. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I am no programmer and what you say sure is correct but of what i listened |
| 16 |
from some OOo devs is that some parts (big or small) need rewrite to |
| 17 |
get stable on amd64. However... |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Latest information I read: |
| 20 |
http://artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~kendy/ooo/OOoCon-2005/ |
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |
Archives