Is DMD 2.052 32-bit?

Nick Sabalausky a at a.a
Wed Mar 9 23:21:33 PST 2011


"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg at gmx.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.2408.1299726495.4748.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
> On Wednesday 09 March 2011 17:56:13 Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 3/9/2011 4:30 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> > Much as I'd love to have a 64-bit binary of dmd, I don't think that the
>> > gain is even vaguely worth the risk at this point.
>>
>> What is the gain? The only thing I can think of is some 64 bit OS
>> distributions are hostile to 32 bit binaries.
>
> Well, the fact that you then have a binary native to your system is 
> obviously a
> gain (and is likely the one which people will cite most often), and that 
> _does_
> count for quite a lot.

Specifically?

> However, regardless of that, it's actually pretty easy to
> get dmd to run out of memory when compiling if you do much in the way of 
> CTFE or
> template stuff. Granted, fixing some of the worst memory-related bugs in 
> dmd will
> go a _long_ way towards fixing that, but even if they are, you're 
> theoretically
> eventually supposed to be able to do pretty much anything at compile time 
> which
> you can do at runtime in SafeD. And using enough memory that you require 
> the 64-
> bit address space would be one of the things that you can do in SafeD when
> compiling for 64-bit. As long as the compiler is only 32-bit, you can't do 
> that
> at compile time even though you can do it at runtime (though the current
> limitations of CTFE do reduce the problem in that you can't do a lot of 
> stuff at
> compile time period).
>
> In any case, the fact that dmd runs out of memory fairly easily makes 
> having a
> 64-bit version which could use all of my machine's memory really 
> attractive. And
> honestly, having an actual, 64-bit binary to run on a 64-bit system is 
> something
> that people generally want, and it _is_ definitely a problem to get a 
> 32-bit
> binary into the 64-bit release of a Liunx distro.
>
> Truth be told, I would have thought that it would be a given that there 
> would be
> a 64-bit version of dmd when going to support 64-bit compilation and was 
> quite
> surprised when that was not your intention.
>

I'd be more interested in a build of DMD that just doesn't eat memory like 
popcorn.





More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list