Should we finally ditch the 32-bit build of dmd?

[Walter Bright]

On 6/16/2021 11:33 PM, max haughton wrote:
> Compile times?

Perhaps, but it only runs on optimized builds.

> OT: I've been reading chunks of the GCC instruction schedulers recently, and I 
> can report that they'd be much more readable (and safer, obviously) in D. The 
> actual approach taken for the OoO monster-cpus we have now (New Apple chips have 
> *16* execution units) isn't totally dissimilar to the code in dmd, just more 
> general (It's effectively an in-order scheduler specifically aimed at the 
> decoder, but the state machine can be generated from the machine description 
> files rather than ad-hoc in code)

The DMD scheduler is mostly table driven.

The tedium with it is creating the tables. It's not fun, mainly because there 
are *so many* instructions, and the probability of error.

Did the gcc compiler guys write the machine description files, too? I suppose 
that's probably an easier way, as one could make a specialized language for it 
that is convenient. After all, for a compiler guy, writing a specialized table 
language is a piece of cake :-)

BTW, many of the old handmade tables in the DMD backend were replaced with 
CTFE-generated tables. A really nice improvement.