April 04, 2008
downs wrote:
> GDC also generates faster code than DMD in many cases :)

There are a fair few cases where the opposite is true, too.
April 04, 2008
Robert Fraser wrote:
> downs wrote:
> 
>> GDC also generates faster code than DMD in many cases :)
> 
> 
> There are a fair few cases where the opposite is true, too.

are the calling conventions compatible? Could the app be compiled twice and then pick and choose what object file to pull each function from? (Yes I know this is "a bad idea" but it would be kinda "fun")
April 05, 2008
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

> "e-t172" wrote
>> Steven Schveighoffer a écrit :
>>> I'd hazard to guess that 90% of software developers couldn't care less. If I have an x86-64 platform, I have no idea, I just know the compiler makes code and it runs :)  And my computer is only a year old, so it probably is
>>
>> Imagine you want to compile a program for a Debian x86_64 (or any other 64bit distribution). Problem is, you can't link a 32bit program to 64bit libraries. So if you want to link your D program to third party C libraries, you're basically screwed. Therefore, I think they care, actually.
> 
> I didn't realize this was the case, so it's not as much a non-issue as I thought.  But I think you might be in the minority, there are still plenty of actively developed 32-bit OSes for Intel processors, so the suggestion that D is focusing on a platform as dead as 286s is grossly false.
> 
> Besides that point, there is no reason that we can't have discussions on
> the NG about language features AND have other people port the D compiler
> to
> x86_64.  AFAIK, gdc is open source and you are welcome to try and port it.

And as far as I know, GDC is pretty stable on x86_64, although not 100% conforming with the D spec.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango
April 05, 2008
e-t172 wrote:

> Steven Schveighoffer a écrit :
>> I'd hazard to guess that 90% of software developers couldn't care less.
>> If I have an x86-64 platform, I have no idea, I just know the compiler
>> makes
>> code and it runs :)  And my computer is only a year old, so it probably
>> is
> 
> Imagine you want to compile a program for a Debian x86_64 (or any other 64bit distribution). Problem is, you can't link a 32bit program to 64bit libraries. So if you want to link your D program to third party C libraries, you're basically screwed. Therefore, I think they care, actually.

You can link a 32-bit program to 32-bit libraries and run them on a 64-bit operating system. I develop on a 64-bit OS with dmd and while it's sometimes a bit funny to locate and install 32-bit development libraries, it is quite  doable. For making true 64-bit binaries, GDC is there. The only bummer I think is that the inline assembler is still stuck on 32-bit even with GDC?

Well this is with linux, I suppose it is possible for windows too?

Though I think everybody would like to see a 64-bit dmd and a rewrite of optlink especially, I don't see how this could take priority above the development of the D language. And const currently is the main thing, saying it is not a high-priority is like saying 'stop Walter, you're done'. You can disagree with the const design, but that's a different argument altogether.
Next ›   Last »
1 2
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home