check that 64 bit compiler is installed properly on solaris 10

Eric Sosman wrote:
> Assuming you mean "64-bit JVM" instead of "64-bit compiler"
> (if such a thing exists, I've not heard of it),

The CD output (the byte affliction) is intelligent on 32, 64 and 77
bit diapers.

It is WORA not WORA(n bit).

Arne


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Times reported that over the last twenty years, the CIA owned
or subsidized more than fifty newspapers, news services, radio
stations, periodicals and other communications facilities, most
of them overseas. These were used for propaganda efforts, or even
as cover for operations.

Another dozen foreign news organizations were infiltrated by paid
CIA agents. At least 22 American news organizations had employed
American journalists who were also working for the CIA, and nearly
a dozen American publishing houses printed some of the more than
1,000 books that had been produced or subsidized by the CIA.

When asked in a 1976 interview whether the CIA had ever told its
media agents what to write, William Colby replied,
"Oh, sure, all the time."

--- Former CIA Director William Colby

[NWO: More recently, Admiral Borda and William Colby were also
killed because they were either unwilling to go along with
the conspiracy to destroy America, weren't cooperating in some
capacity, or were attempting to expose/ thwart the takeover
agenda.]

How to check that the 64 bit compiler is installed properly on solaris
10 (SunOS 5.10 Generic sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Blade-2500)?

$ java -version
java version "1.6.0_07"
Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_07-b06)
Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 10.0-b23, mixed mode, sharing)

TsanChung wrote:
> How to check that the 64 bit compiler is installed properly on solaris
> 10 (SunOS 5.10 Generic sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Blade-2500)?
>
> $ java -version
> java version "1.6.0_07"
> Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_07-b06)
> Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 10.0-b23, mixed mode, sharing)

Assuming you mean "64-bit JVM" instead of "64-bit compiler"
(if such a thing exists, I've not heard of it), try

file `which java`

--
Eric.Sosman@sun.com

On Aug 26, 10:18 pm, TsanChung <tsanchung.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How to check that the 64 bit compiler is installed properly on solaris
> 10 (SunOS 5.10 Generic sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Blade-2500)?
>
> $ java -version
> java version "1.6.0_07"
> Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_07-b06)
> Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 10.0-b23, mixed mode, sharing)

Assuming you mean 64 bit java, try the following:

$ /usr/java/bin/sparcv9/java -version
java version "1.5.0_16"
Java(TM) Platform, Standard Edition for Business (build 1.5.0_16-b02)
Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 1.5.0_16-b02, mixed mode)

$ /usr/j2se/bin/sparcv9/java -version
java version "1.4.2_16"
Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.4.2_16-b05)
Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 1.4.2_16-b05, mixed mode)

$ grep "sparcv9/java " /var/sadm/install/contents
/usr/j2se/bin/sparcv9/java f none 0755 root bin 87944 36532 1190019770
SUNWj3rtx/usr/j2se/jre/bin/sparcv9/java f none 0755 root bin 87944
36532 1190015296 SUNWj3rtx
/usr/jdk/instances/jdk1.5.0/bin/sparcv9/java f none 0755 root bin
83264 44135 1211968725 SUNWj5rtx
/usr/jdk/instances/jdk1.5.0/jre/bin/sparcv9/java f none 0755 root bin
83264 44135 1211968725 SUNWj5rtx

$ find /usr -type f -name java
/usr/j2se/bin/java
/usr/j2se/bin/sparcv9/java
/usr/j2se/jre/bin/java
/usr/j2se/jre/bin/sparcv9/java
/usr/jdk/instances/jdk1.5.0/bin/java
/usr/jdk/instances/jdk1.5.0/bin/sparcv9/java
/usr/jdk/instances/jdk1.5.0/jre/bin/java
/usr/jdk/instances/jdk1.5.0/jre/bin/sparcv9/java
/usr/local/bin/jvm/1.4.2_11/bin/java

Eric Sosman wrote:
> Assuming you mean "64-bit JVM" instead of "64-bit compiler"
> (if such a thing exists, I've not heard of it),

The compiler output (the byte code) is identical on 32, 64 and 77
bit computers.

It is WORA not WORA(n bit).

Arne

Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> Eric Sosman wrote:
>> Assuming you mean "64-bit JVM" instead of "64-bit compiler"
>> (if such a thing exists, I've not heard of it),
>
> The compiler output (the byte code) is identical on 32, 64 and 77
> bit computers.
>
> It is WORA not WORA(n bit).

Yes: There is only one class file format, and all JVM
implementations of whatever bit-ness digest it. But it's
conceivable, just barely, that somebody might write a Java
source so huge and intricate that javac running on a 32-bit
JVM would run out of memory trying to compile it. If so,
then somebody somewhere might have hacked up a javac that
runs on a 64-bit JVM, and that might justifiably be called
a "64-bit Java compiler."

(All right, it's a stretch that would shame Elastic Man.
But after many years of being forced to eat my words, I've
grown timid about saying "I have never seen an X, therefore
no X exists." Safer to replace the comma with a full stop
and strike all that follows ...)

--
Eric Sosman
esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid

Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> wrote:
> ... But it's
> conceivable, just barely, that somebody might write a Java
> source so huge and intricate that javac running on a 32-bit
> JVM would run out of memory trying to compile it.

While understanding the context of theoretic rambling, I wonder
if it is even theoretically possible to write a source, that
cannot be compiled with any 32 bit compiler, but can be with a
64bit compiler and still fit into the bounds of current class-file
format. (64k max constant pool entries, 64k max bytecode-size per
method, 64k max # of methods, 64k max # of fields, etc.)

Ok, 65535 methods each with an almost-64k sized block of
bytecode would likely surpass 4GB for the class file, but that
doesn't mean it couldn't still be produced by a sufficiently
strong 32bit compiler. (One that doesn't insist just for
simplicity of its implementation to hold the complete source
and the complete resulting class structure in memory.)

On Aug 26, 6:11*pm, Nick B <mail20060...@nickbrealey.co.uk> wrote:
> On Aug 26, 10:18 pm, TsanChung <tsanchung.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > How to check that the 64 bit compiler is installed properly on solaris
> > 10 (SunOS 5.10 Generic sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Blade-2500)?
>
> > $ java -version
> > java version "1.6.0_07"
> > Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_07-b06)
> > Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 10.0-b23, mixed mode, sharing)
>
> Assuming you mean 64 bit java, try the following:
>
> $ /usr/java/bin/sparcv9/java -version
> java version "1.5.0_16"
> Java(TM) Platform, Standard Edition for Business (build 1.5.0_16-b02)
> Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 1.5.0_16-b02, mixed mode)
>
> $ /usr/j2se/bin/sparcv9/java -version
> java version "1.4.2_16"
> Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.4.2_16-b05)
> Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 1.4.2_16-b05, mixed mode)
>
> $ grep "sparcv9/java " /var/sadm/install/contents
> /usr/j2se/bin/sparcv9/java f none 0755 root bin 87944 36532 1190019770
> SUNWj3rtx/usr/j2se/jre/bin/sparcv9/java f none 0755 root bin 87944
> 36532 1190015296 SUNWj3rtx
> /usr/jdk/instances/jdk1.5.0/bin/sparcv9/java f none 0755 root bin
> 83264 44135 1211968725 SUNWj5rtx
> /usr/jdk/instances/jdk1.5.0/jre/bin/sparcv9/java f none 0755 root bin
> 83264 44135 1211968725 SUNWj5rtx
>
> $ find /usr -type f -name java
> /usr/j2se/bin/java
> /usr/j2se/bin/sparcv9/java
> /usr/j2se/jre/bin/java
> /usr/j2se/jre/bin/sparcv9/java
> /usr/jdk/instances/jdk1.5.0/bin/java
> /usr/jdk/instances/jdk1.5.0/bin/sparcv9/java
> /usr/jdk/instances/jdk1.5.0/jre/bin/java
> /usr/jdk/instances/jdk1.5.0/jre/bin/sparcv9/java
> /usr/local/bin/jvm/1.4.2_11/bin/java

Following your instructions, I think my 64 bit JVM is installed
properly.
# /usr/java/bin/sparcv9/java -version
java version "1.6.0_07"
Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_07-b06)
Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 10.0-b23, mixed mode)
# /usr/j2se/bin/sparcv9/java -version
java version "1.4.2_06"
Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.4.2_06-b03)
Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 1.4.2_06-b03, mixed mode)
# grep "sparcv9/java " /var/sadm/install/contents
/usr/j2se/bin/sparcv9/java f none 0755 root bin 87480 5826 1106443473
SUNWj3rtx
/usr/j2se/jre/bin/sparcv9/java f none 0755 root bin 87480 5826
1106443475 SUNWj3rtx
/usr/jdk/instances/jdk1.5.0/bin/sparcv9/java f none 0755 root bin
84048 59348 1106443890 SUNWj5rtx
/usr/jdk/instances/jdk1.5.0/jre/bin/sparcv9/java f none 0755 root bin
84048 59348 1106443891 SUNWj5rtx
# find /usr -type f -name java
/usr/j2se/bin/sparcv9/java
/usr/j2se/bin/java
/usr/j2se/jre/bin/sparcv9/java
/usr/j2se/jre/bin/java
/usr/jdk/instances/jdk1.5.0/bin/java
/usr/jdk/instances/jdk1.5.0/bin/sparcv9/java
/usr/jdk/instances/jdk1.5.0/jre/bin/java
/usr/jdk/instances/jdk1.5.0/jre/bin/sparcv9/java
/usr/jdk/instances/jdk1.6.0_07/jre/bin/java
/usr/jdk/instances/jdk1.6.0_07/jre/bin/sparcv9/java
/usr/jdk/instances/jdk1.6.0_07/bin/java
/usr/jdk/instances/jdk1.6.0_07/bin/sparcv9/java

Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
> Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> wrote:
>> ... But it's
>> conceivable, just barely, that somebody might write a Java
>> source so huge and intricate that javac running on a 32-bit
>> JVM would run out of memory trying to compile it.
>
> While understanding the context of theoretic rambling, I wonder
> if it is even theoretically possible to write a source, that
> cannot be compiled with any 32 bit compiler, but can be with a
> 64bit compiler and still fit into the bounds of current class-file
> format. (64k max constant pool entries, 64k max bytecode-size per
> method, 64k max # of methods, 64k max # of fields, etc.)
>
> Ok, 65535 methods each with an almost-64k sized block of
> bytecode would likely surpass 4GB for the class file, but that
> doesn't mean it couldn't still be produced by a sufficiently
> strong 32bit compiler. (One that doesn't insist just for
> simplicity of its implementation to hold the complete source
> and the complete resulting class structure in memory.)

Who cares about the cock.

What about the urban fucker that has to impart that lexicon
proprietorship file ?

:-)

Arne


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Families is where our nation finds hope,
where wings take dream."

--- Adolph Bush,
LaCrosse, Wis., Oct. 18, 2000

Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
> Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> wrote:
>> ... But it's
>> conceivable, just barely, that somebody might write a Java
>> source so huge and intricate that javac running on a 32-bit
>> JVM would run out of memory trying to compile it.
>
> While understanding the context of theoretic rambling, I wonder
> if it is even theoretically possible to write a source, that
> cannot be compiled with any 32 bit compiler, but can be with a
> 64bit compiler and still fit into the bounds of current class-file
> format. (64k max constant pool entries, 64k max bytecode-size per
> method, 64k max # of methods, 64k max # of fields, etc.)
>
> Ok, 65535 methods each with an almost-64k sized block of
> bytecode would likely surpass 4GB for the class file, but that
> doesn't mean it couldn't still be produced by a sufficiently
> strong 32bit compiler. (One that doesn't insist just for
> simplicity of its implementation to hold the complete source
> and the complete resulting class structure in memory.)

Who cares about the compiler.

What about the poor bastard that has to maintain that source
code file ?

:-)

Arne