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

[Jonathan M Davis]

> On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 12:15:50 -0500
> 
> Andrew Wiley <debio264 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I'm aware of multlib in Linux distros considering I spent more than
> 5yrs on Gentoo mostly running x86_64 as well as >3yrs running x86_64
> Archlinux.
> 
> However, multilib was used for stuff like Wine, Skype, flash plugin,
> acroread...iow proprietary stuff for which vendor does not provide 64
> bit version, but I've never encountered the need to use multilib for
> any compiler/programming language (Scheme, Lisp, Erlang, OCaml,
> Haskell).
> 
> Please, name one which does not have 64bit version?
> 
> So, I believe it's quite a moot point in regard to compiler for
> programming language.

Oh, there are plenty of people around here who agree with you and think that 
dmd should have a 64-bit binary. But while it would be much better if it did 
have a 64-bit binary, it doesn't _need_ one, and Walter isn't willing to take 
the time to support one at the moment. It probably won't be as big a deal once 
dmd is more mature, and we'll probably get one eventually - especially if it's 
clear that people want it. But for now, a 32-bit binary works. And out of all 
of the things that Walter could be fixing, the lack of 64-bit binary for dmd 
is probably one of the least useful, much as I'd love to have one. There's 
just too many other bugs and issues that need to be addressed. So, it sucks, 
but it's not all that big a deal.

- Jonathan M Davis