dmd 1.068 and 2.053 release

Jonathan M Davis jmdavisProg at gmx.com
Fri May 13 15:38:20 PDT 2011


> == Quote from Walter Bright (newshound2 at digitalmars.com)'s article
> 
> > Thanks for everyone's hard work on this release!
> > http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
> > http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.067.zip
> > Now includes FreeBSD:
> > http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
> > http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.052.zip
> 
> Oh, one more question I've been meaning to ask for a while: Other than
> ridiculous corner cases (like needing more than 2 GB RAM for CTFE or not
> having 32-bit libs installed) is there any good reason to prefer either
> the 64-bit or 32-bit binary on a 64-bit system?

I think that native is generally preferred. I don't know what the impact on 
performance is for sure either way, but I think that it's generally expected 
that native applications are going to perform better (though as I understand 
it, that's not always true). A _big_ reason is simply ease of installation. If 
you run 32-bit dmd, you need to have the 32-bit versions of certain libraries 
installed. Depending on your distro and what you've been doing, odds are that 
they aren't installed (someone who's been using dmd obviously will have them 
installed, but your average 64-bit Linux user probably won't). So, more is 
required to get the 32-bit version working than the 64-bit version.

So, other than RAM issues or library issues? There _may_ be a performance 
boost, but then again, there may not. Generally however, distros are going to 
prefer native binaries as will most users.

- Jonathan M Davis


More information about the Digitalmars-d-announce mailing list