Emacs for powerpc64

Emacs for powerpc64

[Jérôme Marant]

Hi,

Does Emacs CVS works on powerpc64 (G5 processors)?

Few weeks ago, I forwarded a patch adding powerpc64 support
for Emacs 21.4 and I'd like to know whether the problem has
been worked on already in the upcoming 22.1.

Andreas, is SuSE already working on the powerpc64 port?

Thanks.

Cheers,

-- 
Jérôme Marant

Re: Emacs for powerpc64

[Denis Bueno]

On 4/23/05, Jérôme Marant <jerome.marant [at] free.fr> wrote:
> Does Emacs CVS works on powerpc64 (G5 processors)?

I've had my G5 (Dual 2.5) for many months, and Emacs has worked on it
for as log as I can remember. Every time I update CVS, I run:

  ./configure --without-x --enable-carbon-app && make bootstrap

-Denis
PGP: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0xA1B51B4B&op=index

Re: Emacs for powerpc64

[Jérôme Marant]

Denis Bueno <dbueno@gmail.com> writes:

> On 4/23/05, Jérôme Marant <jerome.marant [at] free.fr> wrote:
>> Does Emacs CVS works on powerpc64 (G5 processors)?
>
> I've had my G5 (Dual 2.5) for many months, and Emacs has worked on it
> for as log as I can remember. Every time I update CVS, I run:
>
>   ./configure --without-x --enable-carbon-app && make bootstrap

Err, sorry I should have mentioned GNU/Linux systems. This is what I am
interested in.

Cheers,

-- 
Jérôme Marant

http://marant.org

Re: Emacs for powerpc64

[Andreas Schwab]

Jérôme Marant <jerome.marant@free.fr> writes:

> Does Emacs CVS works on powerpc64 (G5 processors)?

There were only a few configuration bits missing.  Current CVS is working
now.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Re: Emacs for powerpc64

[Jérôme Marant]

Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de> writes:

> Jérôme Marant <jerome.marant@free.fr> writes:
>
>> Does Emacs CVS works on powerpc64 (G5 processors)?
>
> There were only a few configuration bits missing.  Current CVS is working
> now.

Great. Thanks!

-- 
Jérôme Marant

Re: Emacs for powerpc64

[Jérôme Marant]

Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de> writes:

> Jérôme Marant <jerome.marant@free.fr> writes:
>
>> Does Emacs CVS works on powerpc64 (G5 processors)?
>
> There were only a few configuration bits missing.  Current CVS is working
> now.

Hmm, one question though: why isn't it necessary to redefine constants
like BITS_PER_LONG, BITS_PER_EMACS_INT, EMACS_INT and so on, as done in
the (for instance) AMD64 port file?

Thanks.

-- 
Jérôme Marant

Re: Emacs for powerpc64

[Ken Raeburn]

On Apr 23, 2005, at 13:37, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Hmm, one question though: why isn't it necessary to redefine constants
> like BITS_PER_LONG, BITS_PER_EMACS_INT, EMACS_INT and so on, as done in
> the (for instance) AMD64 port file?

I don't think it's actually needed in the AMD64 port either.  The way 
these get defined should work properly on any 64-bit system that 
defines _LP64.

Somewhere I've got a source tree (from before I got hosed with work and 
stopped being able to contribute) where one of my few pending patches 
was the deletion of some of these symbols from the AMD support, like I 
did for the Alpha in, oh, wow, was it back in 2002?  But I didn't get 
to test out or check in the AMD changes...  Maybe soon, now that I've 
got access to an AMD x86_64 system, and some amount of spare time, I 
can fix that, and contribute a little more as well.

Ken

Re: Emacs for powerpc64

[Jérôme Marant]

Ken Raeburn <raeburn@raeburn.org> writes:

> On Apr 23, 2005, at 13:37, Jérôme Marant wrote:
>> Hmm, one question though: why isn't it necessary to redefine constants
>> like BITS_PER_LONG, BITS_PER_EMACS_INT, EMACS_INT and so on, as done in
>> the (for instance) AMD64 port file?
>
> I don't think it's actually needed in the AMD64 port either.  The way
> these get defined should work properly on any 64-bit system that
> defines _LP64.

Ah, OK.

> Somewhere I've got a source tree (from before I got hosed with work
> and stopped being able to contribute) where one of my few pending
> patches was the deletion of some of these symbols from the AMD
> support, like I did for the Alpha in, oh, wow, was it back in 2002?
> But I didn't get to test out or check in the AMD changes...  Maybe
> soon, now that I've got access to an AMD x86_64 system, and some
> amount of spare time, I can fix that, and contribute a little more as
> well.

Thanks.

-- 
Jérôme Marant