x86_64 support please!

[BLS]

Tomas Lindquist Olsen schrieb:
> BLS wrote:
> 
> 
>>Seems to be a good chance to start re-implementing the complete D
>>Tool-Chain Development in D.
>>(Instead of using C and ASM)
>>IMO D 2.0 should be implemented in D (seperated from 1.x) , even if the
>>2.0 Backend is closed source.
>>Bjoern
>>
>>
>>Kiriakos Alexoglou schrieb:
>>
>>>Please Walter add support for x86_64!
>>>
>>>I use Suse Linux 10.0 and developing in Qt and
>>>I want to try make Qt bindings for dmd.
>>>
>>>The bindings that exist for Qt right now,
>>>can all work with x86_64 architectures.
>>>
>>>In my personal opinion x86_64 support is
>>>more important than adding additional feutures to dmd.
>>>
>>>Right now I have to switch to the 32 bit version of Qt 4.2
>>>and start making the bindings for it. I have no other choice.
>>>
>>>There are so many additional registers waiting to get used
>>>by all of us! :-)
>>>
>>>Thank you for the exciting D language
>>>you offered to all of us!
>>>Keep up the good work!!!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>*I think the D Logo with the Dolphin on it at
>>>http://www.sukimashita.com/d/ is very nice!!!
>>>
>>>
> 
> 
> By using the LLVM backend D could be implemented in D.
> LLVM is C++ but you can output a ASM-like text file instead. I'm not sure
> how much this would hurt performance, but I'm guessing it's not that much.
> Also compared to what is gained it's a small price to pay.
> 
> LLVM has a bytecode VM, JIT and some pretty neat optimisation technology.
> 
> I think it could be interesting...

NO !
NO VM,NET or D to WhatTheHeck cross compilation

I simply vote for a D implemented in D. Frontend,  Backend, Linker .... 
the complete Toolchain..... 32/64 bit at your choice.
The impact of having D in D for Tools like IDEs is significant.
And :
I would prefer to have all  *D Tools implemented as DDL*  guess why ?
Bjoern