I’m just wondering if this has been done yet, as I’d like to try
compiling some of my projects in 64-bit in Windows. The code is
currently 32/64 clean as far as Linux/BSD/Unix is concerned, but it
would be nice to confirm it for Windows as well (seeing how they’re
using LLP64 instead of LP64 like the rest).
I’m wondering if the SDL development libs on the main SDL site are
already set up for this, or if I need to compile them myself. And if
the latter, has anyone ever tried it??
The libraries linked on the official webpage are linked, as I recall,
with MSVC 2005 Express, which doesn’t support 64-bit, so the official
ones do not, you would have to compile them yourself. I know I tried it
in the past and it worked, however, I don’t recall whether I had to
modify anything or not beyond the project files, I know I had
recommended some patches in the past to help with win64 compiling.
If nobody else does, I’ll follow up this weekend and see where the
current status is regarding Windows 64-bit compiling as far as MSVC 2005
is concerned.
–William
Stephen Anthony wrote:> I’m just wondering if this has been done yet, as I’d like to try
compiling some of my projects in 64-bit in Windows. The code is
currently 32/64 clean as far as Linux/BSD/Unix is concerned, but it
would be nice to confirm it for Windows as well (seeing how they’re
using LLP64 instead of LP64 like the rest).
I’m wondering if the SDL development libs on the main SDL site are
already set up for this, or if I need to compile them myself. And if
the latter, has anyone ever tried it??
If nobody else does, I’ll follow up this weekend and see where the
current status is regarding Windows 64-bit compiling as far as MSVC 2005
is concerned.
Yeah, I think it’s worked in the past but no one’s really working on it
at the moment…if you have any win64 patches, I’ll put them in svn.
Wait wait wait… I just saw this post in my inbox and my heart stopped
for a second.
Does that mean I won’t be able to use my favorite library on my new
64-bit custom-built babe? I won’t be using Vista.
=/
Ryan C. Gordon wrote:>> If nobody else does, I’ll follow up this weekend and see where the
current status is regarding Windows 64-bit compiling as far as MSVC 2005
is concerned.
Yeah, I think it’s worked in the past but no one’s really working on it
at the moment…if you have any win64 patches, I’ll put them in svn.
Well, if you’ll be using a 32 bit OS (ie not 64 bit Vista or XP),
you’ll just not be using the 64 bit mode/extensions of the CPU. It’ll
run like a 32 bit CPU - although a lot faster, of course.
The 64 bit modes of x86_64 (AMD64/Intel64) CPUs is just another mode,
like Real Mode (8086, 8088, 80186, …) and the 16 bit (80286) and 32
bit (80386+) Protected Modes. An OS never exposes applications to any
other mode than what they’re compiled for.
The x86 family even allows an OS to switch mode as it switches tasks,
and mix the memory models of the different modes, which is how you
can run 16 bit apps under 32 bit Windows, or 32 bit apps (Windows or
Linux) under 64 bit Linux - full speed, no emulation.
//David Olofson - Programmer, Composer, Open Source Advocate
Wait wait wait… I just saw this post in my inbox and my heart
stopped for a second.
Does that mean I won’t be able to use my favorite library on my new
64-bit custom-built babe? I won’t be using Vista.
2008/1/12, David Olofson :> On Saturday 12 January 2008, Leo M. Cabrera wrote:
Wait wait wait… I just saw this post in my inbox and my heart
stopped for a second.
Does that mean I won’t be able to use my favorite library on my new
64-bit custom-built babe? I won’t be using Vista.
Well, if you’ll be using a 32 bit OS (ie not 64 bit Vista or XP),
you’ll just not be using the 64 bit mode/extensions of the CPU. It’ll
run like a 32 bit CPU - although a lot faster, of course.
I doubt it will a lot faster. Some operations will, but overall -
there won’t be a big difference in speed, I think.
Wait wait wait… I just saw this post in my inbox and my heart
stopped for a second.
Does that mean I won’t be able to use my favorite library on my
new 64-bit custom-built babe? I won’t be using Vista.
Well, if you’ll be using a 32 bit OS (ie not 64 bit Vista or XP),
you’ll just not be using the 64 bit mode/extensions of the CPU.
It’ll
run like a 32 bit CPU - although a lot faster, of course.
I doubt it will a lot faster. Some operations will, but overall -
there won’t be a big difference in speed, I think.
Actually, integer encryption algorithms and the like tend to run
roughly twice as fast compiled as 64 bit code (native 64 bit integer
registers and arithmetics), but some code actually runs slower.
This, however, is comparing 32 and 64 bit code on the same CPU,
which just happens to support both.
What I stated was just that the new CPU will run the 32 bit code a lot
faster than did the old CPU. It’s a matter of raw power, rather than
architecture or extensions.
//David Olofson - Programmer, Composer, Open Source Advocate
2008/1/14, David Olofson :> On Sunday 13 January 2008, Roman Kyrylych wrote:
2008/1/12, David Olofson :
On Saturday 12 January 2008, Leo M. Cabrera wrote:
Wait wait wait… I just saw this post in my inbox and my heart
stopped for a second.
Does that mean I won’t be able to use my favorite library on my
new 64-bit custom-built babe? I won’t be using Vista.
Well, if you’ll be using a 32 bit OS (ie not 64 bit Vista or XP),
you’ll just not be using the 64 bit mode/extensions of the CPU.
It’ll
run like a 32 bit CPU - although a lot faster, of course.
I doubt it will a lot faster. Some operations will, but overall -
there won’t be a big difference in speed, I think.
Actually, integer encryption algorithms and the like tend to run
roughly twice as fast compiled as 64 bit code (native 64 bit integer
registers and arithmetics), but some code actually runs slower.
This, however, is comparing 32 and 64 bit code on the same CPU,
which just happens to support both.
What I stated was just that the new CPU will run the 32 bit code a lot
faster than did the old CPU. It’s a matter of raw power, rather than
architecture or extensions.
Indeed. Thanks for clarification of your statement.
