dmd2-2.052 is only for i386, while you are running amd64 (or dmd2 on FreeBSD)

[Andrew Wiley]

On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> == Quote from Andrew Wiley (debio264 at gmail.com)'s article
>> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Gour-Gadadhara Dasa <gour at atmarama.net> wrote:
>> > yOn Sat, 9 Apr 2011 14:54:55 -0700
>> > Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> So, yeah, it sucks that dmd is only a 32-bit binary, and there are
>> >> currently no plans for it become a 64-bit binary,
>> >
>> > It's really strange to have 32bit executable on 64bit OS these days
>> > and I?m running 64bit OS for years.
>> I run 64 bit Windows 7, where around 70% of my applications are 32
>> bit, and 64 bit Arch Linux, where multilib lets me install the 32 bit
>> version of most applications. If you go through the Linux kernel
>> archives, you'll find that running 32 bit applications on a 64 bit
>> kernel is actually fairly popular because 64 bit applications need
>> ~20% more memory due to increased pointer sizes.
>
> Swollen pointers are a bit of a mute point to make as an argument for 32bit.
>

Well, the argument I've generally heard is that with an application
compiled for 64 bit instead of 32, you get more memory usage for about
the same performance (unless the program is generally CPU bound
instead of IO bound), so unless the program needs more memory than can
be addressed in 32 bits, there isn't a lot of benefit.
That's what I've heard anyway. It's definitely simpler to run a 64 bit
Linux install as all 64 bit, though.