I just downloaded both 1.072 and 2.057. I see that 2.057 is compiled as a 64bit binary and 1.072 as a 32bit binary. Is there a reason for this difference?

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 12/14/2011 1:35 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> I just downloaded both 1.072 and 2.057. I see that 2.057 is compiled as a 64bit
> binary and 1.072 as a 32bit binary. Is there a reason for this difference?

They should have both been 64 bit. Probably something wrong with my build script.

My intent is to go all 64 bit for the OS X binaries. Apple stopped shipping 32 bit only Macs several years ago. While I intend to still build and test the 32 bit binaries, I see no point in shipping them.

On 2011-12-14 10:39, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 12/14/2011 1:35 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> I just downloaded both 1.072 and 2.057. I see that 2.057 is compiled
>> as a 64bit
>> binary and 1.072 as a 32bit binary. Is there a reason for this
>> difference?
>
> They should have both been 64 bit. Probably something wrong with my
> build script.
>
> My intent is to go all 64 bit for the OS X binaries. Apple stopped
> shipping 32 bit only Macs several years ago. While I intend to still
> build and test the 32 bit binaries, I see no point in shipping them.

Yeah, I see no point with the 32bit binaries either. But the 64bit binaries target 64bit by default, that's how I noticed it, my code wasn't completely 64bit compatible.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 12/14/2011 2:03 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> Yeah, I see no point with the 32bit binaries either. But the 64bit binaries
> target 64bit by default, that's how I noticed it, my code wasn't completely
> 64bit compatible.

The default is set to match gcc's default.

On 2011-12-14 11:13, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 12/14/2011 2:03 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> Yeah, I see no point with the 32bit binaries either. But the 64bit
>> binaries
>> target 64bit by default, that's how I noticed it, my code wasn't
>> completely
>> 64bit compatible.
>
> The default is set to match gcc's default.

Yeah, it's the only reason this matters on Mac OS X. If it was a "regular" application I probably never would have noticed.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 12/14/2011 2:37 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> Yeah, it's the only reason this matters on Mac OS X. If it was a "regular"
> application I probably never would have noticed.

I find I don't notice. (I think that's good!) Unless I'm debugging an issue specific to 32 or 64 bits.

It makes me wonder if we need to support 32 bit generation on OSX at all.

On 14-12-2011 11:54, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 12/14/2011 2:37 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> Yeah, it's the only reason this matters on Mac OS X. If it was a
>> "regular"
>> application I probably never would have noticed.
>
> I find I don't notice. (I think that's good!) Unless I'm debugging an
> issue specific to 32 or 64 bits.
>
> It makes me wonder if we need to support 32 bit generation on OSX at all.
>

No point maintaining something that won't be used. I would also imagine that it can't be long before Windows stops supporting 32-bit.

- Alex

On 2011-12-14 11:54, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 12/14/2011 2:37 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> Yeah, it's the only reason this matters on Mac OS X. If it was a
>> "regular"
>> application I probably never would have noticed.
>
> I find I don't notice. (I think that's good!) Unless I'm debugging an
> issue specific to 32 or 64 bits.
>
> It makes me wonder if we need to support 32 bit generation on OSX at all.

Yeah, I wonder that too. But does it hurt/cause problems to do? I mean, it's already supported.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Wednesday, 14 December 2011 at 11:07:22 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> No point maintaining something that won't be used. I would also imagine that it can't be long before Windows stops supporting 32-bit.

Windows still supports 16-bit apps (even 64-bit versions do, for some rare exceptions)!

On 2011-12-14 10:54:55 +0000, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> said:

> On 12/14/2011 2:37 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> Yeah, it's the only reason this matters on Mac OS X. If it was a "regular"
>> application I probably never would have noticed.
> 
> I find I don't notice. (I think that's good!) Unless I'm debugging an issue specific to 32 or 64 bits.
> 
> It makes me wonder if we need to support 32 bit generation on OSX at all.

If I were to develop a Mac application in D at this time, not being able to target older 32-bit macs would make me reconsider using D. The app I'm working on still has PowerPC support!

Perhaps I'm not the typical Mac developer though. But as long as Apple supports compiling for 32-bit with the provided developer tools I'd keep it in DMD too, if only because it'd make D look cheep otherwise.

Also, I think it'd make sense that druntime and phobos continue to support 32-bit OS X in case someone wants to target iOS one day, which is basically 32-bit OS X on ARM.

-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin@michelf.com
http://michelf.com/