Has anyone built a 64-bit Ruby for Leopard. I've googled my brains out,
but am finding nothing.
I'm using 1.8.6 right now, but I could start testing 1.9.x if necessary.
I need it for pure Ruby projects to work on some large data aggregation
tasks that are whacking the 4GB RAM limit.
-- gw
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Read:
For 1.9 I configured:
$ LDFLAGS="-arch x86_64" CFLAGS="-arch x86_64 -mmacosx-version-min=10.5 -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64" ./configure
(ignore the error from fuse, it seems configure doesn't use CFLAGS there)
`make test` finishes most tests, `make test-all` fails with a missing encoding (maybe iconv isn't compiled 64-bit?)
The built ruby is 64-bit though:
$ ./ruby -ve 'p 1.size'
ruby 1.9.1p129 (2009-05-12 revision 23412) [i386-darwin9.7.0]
8
Compared to Apple ruby:
$ ruby -ve 'p 1.size'
ruby 1.8.6 (2008-08-11 patchlevel 287) [universal-darwin9.0]
4
I imagine the same configure flags would work for 1.8.
On Jun 30, 2009, at 18:36, Greg Willits wrote:
Has anyone built a 64-bit Ruby for Leopard. I've googled my brains out,
but am finding nothing.I'm using 1.8.6 right now, but I could start testing 1.9.x if necessary.
I need it for pure Ruby projects to work on some large data aggregation
tasks that are whacking the 4GB RAM limit.
I personally won't use anything that isn't under x64. No offense to people
who are scared about memory usage but I prefer to be able to address my
12GB+ of Ram on each of my servers without needing to hack my Kernel for
anything more than security, and speed. I've had no problems with the
memory the gentleman reported with memory consumption crawling on OSX, BSD
or Debian so perhaps it's just a bad compile in his behalf? Our Daemons that
monitor our main server would have caught a memory leak if it was happening
but they haven't yet and even on a check with the amount of hits we get, our
total memory usage for Ruby is only 1.5GB total for all 15 Processes that
run Ruby.
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Hodel [mailto:drbrain@segment7.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 4:16 PM
To: ruby-talk ML
Subject: Re: 64-bit Ruby for OS X ?
On Jun 30, 2009, at 18:36, Greg Willits wrote:
Has anyone built a 64-bit Ruby for Leopard. I've googled my brains
out,
but am finding nothing.I'm using 1.8.6 right now, but I could start testing 1.9.x if
necessary.I need it for pure Ruby projects to work on some large data
aggregation
tasks that are whacking the 4GB RAM limit.
Read:
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/Conceptual/64bitPorting/buil
ding/building.html#/
/apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40001064-CH208-BHCHDAFB
For 1.9 I configured:
$ LDFLAGS="-arch x86_64" CFLAGS="-arch x86_64 -mmacosx-version-
min=10.5 -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64" ./configure
(ignore the error from fuse, it seems configure doesn't use CFLAGS
there)
`make test` finishes most tests, `make test-all` fails with a missing
encoding (maybe iconv isn't compiled 64-bit?)
The built ruby is 64-bit though:
$ ./ruby -ve 'p 1.size'
ruby 1.9.1p129 (2009-05-12 revision 23412) [i386-darwin9.7.0]
8
Compared to Apple ruby:
$ ruby -ve 'p 1.size'
ruby 1.8.6 (2008-08-11 patchlevel 287) [universal-darwin9.0]
4
I imagine the same configure flags would work for 1.8.
Eric Hodel wrote:
On Jun 30, 2009, at 18:36, Greg Willits wrote:
Has anyone built a 64-bit Ruby for Leopard. I've googled my brains
out, but am finding nothing.
For 1.9 I configured:
$ LDFLAGS="-arch x86_64" CFLAGS="-arch x86_64 -mmacosx-version-
min=10.5 -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64" ./configure
Thanks, I'll give that a try later this week.
-- gw
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
I don't understand what this is a response to from my instructions about how to compile ruby for 64-bit.
On Jul 1, 2009, at 14:28, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
I personally won't use anything that isn't under x64. No offense to people
who are scared about memory usage but I prefer to be able to address my
12GB+ of Ram on each of my servers without needing to hack my Kernel for
anything more than security, and speed. I've had no problems with the
memory the gentleman reported with memory consumption crawling on OSX, BSD
or Debian so perhaps it's just a bad compile in his behalf? Our Daemons that
monitor our main server would have caught a memory leak if it was happening
but they haven't yet and even on a check with the amount of hits we get, our
total memory usage for Ruby is only 1.5GB total for all 15 Processes that
run Ruby.
I want to take the time to thank you for calling me out personally and
singling me out for something that lots of people do, while I continue to
"top-post". I prefer it when people get pissed off at the little things in
the world because they are 1.) Arrogant and 2.) Ignorant.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan Davis [mailto:ryand-ruby@zenspider.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 5:45 PM
To: ruby-talk ML
Subject: Re: 64-bit Ruby for OS X ?
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
On Jul 1, 2009, at 14:28 , Jordon Bedwell wrote:
I personally won't use anything that isn't under x64. No offense to
people
who are scared about memory usage but I prefer to be able to address
my
12GB+ of Ram on each of my servers without needing to hack my Kernel
for
anything more than security, and speed. I've had no problems with the
memory the gentleman reported with memory consumption crawling on
OSX, BSD
or Debian so perhaps it's just a bad compile in his behalf? Our
Daemons that
monitor our main server would have caught a memory leak if it was
happening
but they haven't yet and even on a check with the amount of hits we
get, our
total memory usage for Ruby is only 1.5GB total for all 15 Processes
that
run Ruby.
such sophistication and yet you still top-post...
You have a great day, because you've just made my day. I suggest you check
your email in order and see the original posters email and then follow the
emails. Or do you get pissed off because your email doesn't go in an
ascending fashion too, you know you can set your email to display in Time
Ascending right? Thanks again and have a great day. I look forward to more
emails from you.
Ryan Davis wrote:
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?Daemons that
monitor our main server would have caught a memory leak if it was
happening
but they haven't yet and even on a check with the amount of hits we
get, our
total memory usage for Ruby is only 1.5GB total for all 15 Processes
that
run Ruby.such sophistication and yet you still top-post...
Q: second most annoying thing in email?
the world from top posting and can't accept that it is not a major
criminal offense.
I prefer bottom posting too (and Macs, and Fords, and...) -- let it
go...
-- gw
On Jul 1, 2009, at 14:28 , Jordon Bedwell wrote:
A: threads with complaints by people who won't accept they can't stop
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
Small minds can't cope with diversity.
________________________________
From: Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@zenspider.com>
To: ruby-talk ML <ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2009 3:45:08 PM
Subject: Re: 64-bit Ruby for OS X ?
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
On Jul 1, 2009, at 14:28 , Jordon Bedwell wrote:
I personally won't use anything that isn't under x64. No offense to people
who are scared about memory usage but I prefer to be able to address my
12GB+ of Ram on each of my servers without needing to hack my Kernel for
anything more than security, and speed. I've had no problems with the
memory the gentleman reported with memory consumption crawling on OSX, BSD
or Debian so perhaps it's just a bad compile in his behalf? Our Daemons that
monitor our main server would have caught a memory leak if it was happening
but they haven't yet and even on a check with the amount of hits we get, our
total memory usage for Ruby is only 1.5GB total for all 15 Processes that
run Ruby.
such sophistication and yet you still top-post...
I think we're supposed to be impressed by the 12+ GB of RAM, or the ~100MB per process for the ruby processes or something like that and all rush out and recompile for 64 bit.
I'd be interested to know how those servers really benchmark compared to an x32 core with PAE and the same amount of RAM, but that's just little old contrarian me.
Ellie
Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains
http://slides.games-with-brains.net
On 2 Jul 2009, at 00:29, Eric Hodel wrote:
On Jul 1, 2009, at 14:28, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
I personally won't use anything that isn't under x64. No offense to people
who are scared about memory usage but I prefer to be able to address my
12GB+ of Ram on each of my servers without needing to hack my Kernel for
anything more than security, and speed. I've had no problems with the
memory the gentleman reported with memory consumption crawling on OSX, BSD
or Debian so perhaps it's just a bad compile in his behalf? Our Daemons that
monitor our main server would have caught a memory leak if it was happening
but they haven't yet and even on a check with the amount of hits we get, our
total memory usage for Ruby is only 1.5GB total for all 15 Processes that
run Ruby.I don't understand what this is a response to from my instructions about how to compile ruby for 64-bit.
----
raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason
Greg Willits wrote:
I prefer bottom posting too (and Macs, and Fords, and...) -- let it go...
(: is cognition human powerful how amazing really It's. Ditto.
Ew, Fords?
--
vjoel : Joel VanderWerf : path berkeley edu : 510 665 3407
And top posters have no interest in their contributions being seen in context.
Ellie
Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains
http://slides.games-with-brains.net
On 2 Jul 2009, at 01:00, Garry Freemyer wrote:
Small minds can't cope with diversity.
----
raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason
I think it's time we start a ruby-top-post list.
On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 09:14:03AM +0900, Eleanor McHugh wrote:
On 2 Jul 2009, at 01:00, Garry Freemyer wrote:
Small minds can't cope with diversity.
And top posters have no interest in their contributions being seen in
context.
--
Aaron Patterson
http://tenderlovemaking.com/
Or write a mail client that automatically presents posts in the preferred style of the user, but always sends them in bottom-post format 
Ellie
Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains
http://slides.games-with-brains.net
On 2 Jul 2009, at 07:31, Aaron Patterson wrote:
On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 09:14:03AM +0900, Eleanor McHugh wrote:
On 2 Jul 2009, at 01:00, Garry Freemyer wrote:
Small minds can't cope with diversity.
And top posters have no interest in their contributions being seen in
context.I think it's time we start a ruby-top-post list.
----
raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason