dmd platform support - poll

[Nick Sabalausky]

"K.Wilson" <k.wilson at nospam.nowhere.com> wrote in message 
news:gjrprj$la5$1 at digitalmars.com...
> Daniel de Kok Wrote:
>
>> On 2008-12-25 21:30:52 +0100, Walter Bright <newshound1 at digitalmars.com> 
>> said:
>>
>> > What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?
>>
>> In order of decreasing precedence:
>>
>> Mac OS X 64-bit Intel
>> Linux x86_64
>> Mac OS X 32-bit Intel
>>
>> I wouldn't use the other platforms much (if at all).
>>
>> Take care,
>> Daniel
>>
>
> Just my two bits here.  I would like to see Linux x86_64 support, above 
> all else. I am the guy that added x64 support to ldc, solely because I 
> have nothing but 64bit machines here ;)
>
> This doesn't mean that I use the 64 bit address space and all those 
> registers, and that I max out the system every day (as another part of 
> this thread seems to indicate is a requirement????)...it just means that 
> dmd wouldn't work on my machines and gdc didn't support/compile some code 
> I was using. I needed a working compiler on x64 Linux and poking inside 
> gdc is not my favorite activity, so I updated ldc.
>

I guess there was confusion about DMD support for a particular host platform 
vs a particular target platform. If DMD does't even run or work correctly on 
64-bit machines, even in 32-bit mode, (I don't know, as I don't use them) 
then yes, that indeed is a very major problem.

> Thanks,
> K.Wilson
>
> P.S. I also have access to a PPC Mac, so I guess that would be second on 
> my list...I think Mac support in general would be nice.