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!!!

Kiriakos Alexoglou wrote:

> 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!!!

AFAIK 64bit support is being fixed in GDC, I believe this is much more likely to appear than DMD64.

That being said:
vote++

> vote++

me too

-- 
v4sw7Yhw4ln0pr7Ock2/3ma7uLw5Xm0l6/7DGKi2e6t6ELNSTVXb7AHIMOen5a2Xs5Mr2g5ACPR hackerkey.com

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!!!
> 
> 

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...

Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:
> Kiriakos Alexoglou wrote:
> 
>> 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.

vote--. That may be true, but do you have any idea how much work this would involve?? (Hint: begin by implementing a linker from scratch).
We'd lose Walter for a year! Has to happen someday, but I don't think Walter should put any thought into it until GDC-64 is firmly established.

OTOH, I hope we get a working GDC-x64 very soon.

Don Clugston wrote:
> Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:
>> Kiriakos Alexoglou wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
> 
> vote--. That may be true, but do you have any idea how much work this would involve?? (Hint: begin by implementing a linker from scratch).
> We'd lose Walter for a year! Has to happen someday, but I don't think Walter should put any thought into it until GDC-64 is firmly established.
> 
> OTOH, I hope we get a working GDC-x64 very soon.

I agree with Don on this one.  This is the kind of project that requires a lot of dedicated man-hours to do right.  In other words, it's going to need some serious (fiscal) backing before it'll materialize on anything but a *geologic* timescale.

Disclaimer: I haven't written anything as involved as a complete compiler toolchain, nor am I a PM.  But I'd imagine that this is the kind of task that doesn't segment easily for sub-teams to handle (aside from the obvious compiler/linker split).  There's just too much vertical integration between parts to have each component developed in relative isolation from another: parser, parse-tree, semantic analyzer, code generator, .obj generator, optimizer, linker, etc.  So I'm left with the impression that the ideal team size for this may only be a handful of people at best, lest they begin to interfere with one another, which further compounds the time-to-delivery issue.

-- 
- EricAnderton at yahoo

Don Clugston wrote:

> Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:
>> Kiriakos Alexoglou wrote:
>> 
>>> 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.
> 
> vote--. That may be true, but do you have any idea how much work this would involve?? (Hint: begin by implementing a linker from scratch). We'd lose Walter for a year! Has to happen someday, but I don't think Walter should put any thought into it until GDC-64 is firmly established.
> 
> OTOH, I hope we get a working GDC-x64 very soon.

I agree. The important thing is not to get dmd64 but to get a D 64bit compiler, that we get some D 64bit compiler is rather urgent thou.

Don Clugston wrote:
> Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:
>> Kiriakos Alexoglou wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
> 
> vote--. That may be true, but do you have any idea how much work this would involve?? (Hint: begin by implementing a linker from scratch).
> We'd lose Walter for a year! Has to happen someday, but I don't think Walter should put any thought into it until GDC-64 is firmly established.
> 
> OTOH, I hope we get a working GDC-x64 very soon.

vote-- as well.

For the record, you're at 0 votes now :P

 - Gregor Richards

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