[OT] Re: x86_64 support please!

[Jascha Wetzel]

> In case that you are talking about GCC,
> 1)fat bottom binaries
> 2)a never ending compile link cycle.

i wasn't specifically talking about any compiler.
it's probably true that GCC has the properties you describe, but i don't
understand why they are caused by intermediate code generation or cross
compilation.

>> compilers have intermediate code generation for decades....
> Yep. And this is good for what ?

- easier/faster optimization
- machine independent optimization
- portability. not just different platforms, but also different feature
sets and versions

maybe that's just theory. i never implemented an optimizing compiler
myself. but that's what the dragonbook and friends say. i'm very
interested in more practical knowledge about these things. right now i
just can't see why ICG should cause any trouble.

BLS wrote:
> Hi Jascha,
> 
>> what's so bad about cross compilation?
> 
> In case that you are talking about GCC,
> 1)fat bottom binaries
> 2)a never ending compile link cycle.
> 
>> compilers have intermediate code generation for decades....
> Yep. And this is good for what ?
> 
> However, we are leaving the 64 bit discussion.
> Bjoern
> 
> Jascha Wetzel schrieb:
>> what's so bad about cross compilation?
>> compilers have intermediate code generation for decades, therefore
>> having different code generation and -optimization backends is a good
>> thing. am i wrong?
>>
>> BLS wrote:
>>
>>> Tomas Lindquist Olsen schrieb:
>>>
>>>> BLS wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Seems to be a good chance to start re-implementing the complete D
>>>>> Tool-Chain Development in D.
>>>>> (Instead of using C and ASM)
>>>>> IMO D 2.0 should be implemented in D (seperated from 1.x) , even if
>>>>> the
>>>>> 2.0 Backend is closed source.
>>>>> Bjoern
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Kiriakos Alexoglou schrieb:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Please Walter add support for x86_64!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I use Suse Linux 10.0 and developing in Qt and
>>>>>> I want to try make Qt bindings for dmd.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The bindings that exist for Qt right now,
>>>>>> can all work with x86_64 architectures.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In my personal opinion x86_64 support is
>>>>>> more important than adding additional feutures to dmd.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right now I have to switch to the 32 bit version of Qt 4.2
>>>>>> and start making the bindings for it. I have no other choice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are so many additional registers waiting to get used
>>>>>> by all of us! :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you for the exciting D language
>>>>>> you offered to all of us!
>>>>>> Keep up the good work!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *I think the D Logo with the Dolphin on it at
>>>>>> http://www.sukimashita.com/d/ is very nice!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> By using the LLVM backend D could be implemented in D.
>>>> LLVM is C++ but you can output a ASM-like text file instead. I'm not
>>>> sure
>>>> how much this would hurt performance, but I'm guessing it's not that
>>>> much.
>>>> Also compared to what is gained it's a small price to pay.
>>>>
>>>> LLVM has a bytecode VM, JIT and some pretty neat optimisation
>>>> technology.
>>>>
>>>> I think it could be interesting...
>>>
>>> NO !
>>> NO VM,NET or D to WhatTheHeck cross compilation
>>>
>>> I simply vote for a D implemented in D. Frontend,  Backend, Linker ....
>>> the complete Toolchain..... 32/64 bit at your choice.
>>> The impact of having D in D for Tools like IDEs is significant.
>>> And :
>>> I would prefer to have all  *D Tools implemented as DDL*  guess why ?
>>> Bjoern
>>>
>>>