Why is 64-bit dmd not built as part of the Windows release?
12345swordy
alexanderheistermann at gmail.com
Tue May 15 17:40:46 UTC 2018
On Tuesday, 15 May 2018 at 16:01:28 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
> I don't know why even bother with 32-bit dmd to begin with, but
> at least there should be an option.
>
> I just spent 45min trying to build 64-bit dmd on Windows. It
> wasn't fun. "Isn't it just make -f win64.mak?", I hear you ask.
> Yes. If you want a version with debug messages turned on. It
> took me 45min to learn that disabling those is... non-trivial.
>
> As it turns out, trying to build dmd yourself from the released
> tag and replacing the .exe from the installer by the one you
> created works, unless:
>
> 1. You remove -debug
> 2. You add -O
>
> If you do #1 or #2, then the produced dmd.exe doesn't work. At
> all. 32 *or* 64 bits. And this is something you need to edit
> the makefile for, trying to do that from the command line was
> an exercise in futility.
>
> "How does the installer-built version work then?", I again hear
> you ask. No idea. Debug 64-bit dmd it is!
>
> I *would* try and add a 64-bit dmd to the installer, but
> apparently to build the Windows installer you need a special
> Windows box commisioned by the Vatican and blessed by the Pope
> himself.
>
> Atila
Wait, dmd doesn't use cmake to generate the makefile!? IMO this
is the reason why configuration tools like cmake exist.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list