Can I use BCB6 with AMD 64bit processors?
Vladimir Stefanovic
I think that someone says some time ago,
that there were some problems (or not)...
Best regards,
Vladimir Stefanovic
Yu-Chen Hsueh
Officially, BCB6 is not supported on AMD 64-bit systems. That having been
said, it seems that some customers have been using the two together
successfully.
Early on, some customers did encounter freezing issues on their Opteron and
Athlon 64 machines. The few instances that I'm personally aware of were
fixed by applying the errata 109 BIOS update.
-- YH --
--
Please confine your posts to the newsgroups and DO NOT reply to this e-mail
account unless asked. Any unsolicted e-mail will be ignored.
Vladimir Stefanovic
What is:
> [...] errata 109 BIOS update.
... is that some speciffic flash for the motherboard?
Best regards,
Vladimir Stefanovic
Yu-Chen Hsueh
http://news.com.com/AMD+offers+fix+for+processor+glitch/2110-1006_3-5245501.
html?tag=nefd.hed
Applying the update for it has helped other BCB6 customers avoid the
freezing issue in the past.
Sean Hoffman
developing 64 bits, I shudder to say, Microsoft is your only choice, despite
the fact that they haven't released a Platform SDK that supports 64 bit
development yet. If you're interested in this, I posted a writeup on how to
develop 64 bit apps with Visual Studio.NET at the following link:
"Vladimir Stefanovic" <sp...@not.needed> wrote in message
news:4162e1a2$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
Sebastian Ledesma
(I expect to buy my
AMD64 by december/january 05).
Saludos
Sebastian
"Sean Hoffman" <seandontspammehoff@austintxDOTcom> escribió en el mensaje
news:4163...@newsgroups.borland.com...
Mogens Hansen
"Sean Hoffman" <seandontspammehoff@austintxDOTcom> wrote in message
news:4163...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> Note, you still won't be able to build 64 bit apps. If you're interested
in
> developing 64 bits, I shudder to say, Microsoft is your only choice,
Intel C++ V8.1 is capable of compiling 64 bit applications.
Since Intel and AMD x86-64 processors are compatible it should work -
although I haven't tried.
Kind regards
Mogens Hansen
Sean Hoffman
"Sebastian Ledesma" <labo_no_sp@m_solidyne1.com> wrote in message
news:4163...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> As I know the GCC also supports AMD64 for Win64 and Linux, but never
> tested
> (I expect to buy my
> AMD64 by december/january 05).
>
> Saludos
> Sebastian
Sean Hoffman
anything built with Intel C++ on and AMD system unless I'd examined the
assembly output to verify nothing funky was going on.
"Mogens Hansen" <moge...@dk-online.dk> wrote in message
news:4164...@newsgroups.borland.com...
>
<snip>
Chris Uzdavinis
> I stand corrected once again, though I'd be a little nervous about
> running anything built with Intel C++ on and AMD system unless I'd
> examined the assembly output to verify nothing funky was going on.
From what I understand, Intel has one of the best--if not THE
best--optimizers available. Even without processor-specific codegen
optimizations (obviously not available for AMD), the
non-platform-specific optimizations are still have supposedly very
good results, even for AMD platforms.
As for 64-bits, though, I'm not sure if their compiler will target an
Opteron. Anyone know any deatils here?
--
Chris (TeamB);
Sean Hoffman
wonderful things about their compiler.. But worried me was the potential
de-optimizations. I'm not saying there are any, and I'm not saying there
aren't. I'm just saying I'd want to know for sure before I built a product
on it. Intel doesn't exactly have a history of making things easy on their
competition, especially when that competition is managing to beat them in
some way...
"Chris Uzdavinis (TeamB)" <ch...@uzdavinis.com> wrote in message
news:j5ekkbb...@explicit.atdesk.com...
<snip>
Oscar Fuentes
> It wasn't their optimizations I was worried about, as I too have heard
> wonderful things about their compiler.. But worried me was the potential
> de-optimizations. I'm not saying there are any, and I'm not saying there
> aren't. I'm just saying I'd want to know for sure before I built a product
> on it. Intel doesn't exactly have a history of making things easy on their
> competition, especially when that competition is managing to beat them in
> some way...
My workstation is an Athlon and I use Intel as my main C++
compiler. It beats all other compilers I tried (MSVC++, g++,
Metrowerks)
OTOH, I'm not aware of Intel support for AMD64. What I get is a
compiler for x86, other for Itanium and other for "Extended Memory
64", which I think is not the same as AMD64.
--
Oscar
Sean Hoffman
marketing name for AMD64. There were a couple of minor differences relating
to the fact that Intel did their reverse engineering based on an earlier
opcode doc, but the implementations are very close..
"Oscar Fuentes" <o...@wanadoo.es> wrote in message
news:llejvj...@wanadoo.es...
<snip>
Randall Parker
Intel just announced (like 2 or 3 days ago) a new rev of their compiler and they now
generate code for AMD64. That really surprised me.
Mogens Hansen
> I stand corrected once again, though I'd be a little nervous about running
> anything built with Intel C++ on and AMD system unless I'd examined the
> assembly output to verify nothing funky was going on.
I've been using the Intel C++ compilers for years through many versions
on both Intel and AMD CPU's and both on MS-Windows and Linux, without
noticing any problems.
Kind regards
Mogens Hansen
J Alexander
lot of experience with gcc for Opteron on 64bit Linux. There are basically
two problems that make it less than optimal choice. First, there are
occasions when gcc simply hangs when compiling certain code; sometimes it's
random hanging, as I see our build machines hanging from time to time. The
other problem is with code optimization. VC produces so much better code (we
use a lot of tight template stuff), so that gcc executable on 2GHz opteron
runs approximately with the same speed as VC7.1 executable on my Pentium M
1.7GHz. So unless you absolutely need a lot of memory, gcc/Opteron64 is not
a very attractive solution.
J
"Sebastian Ledesma" <labo_no_sp@m_solidyne1.com> wrote in message
news:4163...@newsgroups.borland.com...
Chris Hill
<seandontspammehoff@austintxDOTcom> wrote:
>Note, you still won't be able to build 64 bit apps. If you're interested in
>developing 64 bits, I shudder to say, Microsoft is your only choice, despite
>the fact that they haven't released a Platform SDK that supports 64 bit
>development yet.
BTW, for those without MSDN access to the DDK, MS will ship you the
DDK containing their AMD64 compiler on DVD for a S&H fee.
MS does seem to be dragging their feet on 64-bit development tools.
The Platform SDK (at least the public one) has been extremely slow to
update. The XP SP2 PSDK wasn't made available until after SP2! The
AMD64 Win64 OS itself is in public beta, but not the development
tools. It's as if MS doesn't want developers working on SP2
compatible or 64-bit applications. It doesn't make much sense.
Visual Studio has also been slow to add full support for 64-bit
platform build configurations, despite the fact that the IA64 verison
of Windows has been shipping since XP originally shipped.
Chris Hill
Chri...@aol.com
Sean Hoffman
news:4164b7cf....@forums.borland.com...
<snip>
> MS does seem to be dragging their feet on 64-bit development tools.
> The Platform SDK (at least the public one) has been extremely slow to
> update. The XP SP2 PSDK wasn't made available until after SP2! The
> AMD64 Win64 OS itself is in public beta, but not the development
> tools. It's as if MS doesn't want developers working on SP2
> compatible or 64-bit applications. It doesn't make much sense.
>
> Visual Studio has also been slow to add full support for 64-bit
> platform build configurations, despite the fact that the IA64 verison
> of Windows has been shipping since XP originally shipped.
COMPLETELY agree. I spent about 5 hours last week just trying to find the
SP2 Platform SDK download so I could interface with their firewall API.
Don't believe me? Try looking for the firewall API header (netfw.h), or
even the .idl file. It's like you said; it's almost as if Microsoft doesn't
want people developing for the new platforms..
Peter Agricola
"Sean Hoffman" wrote:
> It's like you said; it's almost as if Microsoft doesn't want people
> developing for the new platforms..
Not almost. They just don't want you to develop using the platform SDK. They
want you to use the .NET framework.
Unfortunately Borland hasn't finished the integration of C++ into BDS yet
;-)
Peter
Roddy Pratt
news:4162fb50$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> Applying the update for it has helped other BCB6 customers avoid the
> freezing issue in the past.
>
I just hit exactly this with a brand-new Shuttle SN85G4 system I've built.
Upgrading the Shuttle BIOS to the latest rev fixed the hang. All other
suggestions I tried (RAM voltage, drivers) had no effect.
- Roddy
Marcelo R. Lopez, Jr.
Security by OBSCURITY.....just another part of Microsoft 3E's
policy.....embrace, extend, extinguish.....next up..FireWalls.
I R T
> Security by OBSCURITY.....just another part of Microsoft 3E's
> policy.....embrace, extend, extinguish.....
You forgot:
communication,timely releases and enhancements.
Microsoft have done a far better job than Borland in communicating with
customers, timely releases of development tools and worthwhile enhancements
of those tools.
Marcelo R. Lopez, Jr.
Like I've said before....even a nut-job like Steve Ballmer can be right
every so often.