January 05, 2009 Re: dmd platform support - poll | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Daniel de Kok | Daniel de Kok Wrote:
> On 2008-12-25 21:30:52 +0100, Walter Bright <newshound1@digitalmars.com> said:
>
> > What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?
>
> In order of decreasing precedence:
>
> Mac OS X 64-bit Intel
> Linux x86_64
> Mac OS X 32-bit Intel
>
> I wouldn't use the other platforms much (if at all).
>
> Take care,
> Daniel
>
Just my two bits here. I would like to see Linux x86_64 support, above all else. I am the guy that added x64 support to ldc, solely because I have nothing but 64bit machines here ;)
This doesn't mean that I use the 64 bit address space and all those registers, and that I max out the system every day (as another part of this thread seems to indicate is a requirement????)...it just means that dmd wouldn't work on my machines and gdc didn't support/compile some code I was using. I needed a working compiler on x64 Linux and poking inside gdc is not my favorite activity, so I updated ldc.
Thanks,
K.Wilson
P.S. I also have access to a PPC Mac, so I guess that would be second on my list...I think Mac support in general would be nice.
|
January 05, 2009 Re: dmd platform support - poll | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to K.Wilson | "K.Wilson" <k.wilson@nospam.nowhere.com> wrote in message news:gjrprj$la5$1@digitalmars.com... > Daniel de Kok Wrote: > >> On 2008-12-25 21:30:52 +0100, Walter Bright <newshound1@digitalmars.com> said: >> >> > What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using? >> >> In order of decreasing precedence: >> >> Mac OS X 64-bit Intel >> Linux x86_64 >> Mac OS X 32-bit Intel >> >> I wouldn't use the other platforms much (if at all). >> >> Take care, >> Daniel >> > > Just my two bits here. I would like to see Linux x86_64 support, above all else. I am the guy that added x64 support to ldc, solely because I have nothing but 64bit machines here ;) > > This doesn't mean that I use the 64 bit address space and all those registers, and that I max out the system every day (as another part of this thread seems to indicate is a requirement????)...it just means that dmd wouldn't work on my machines and gdc didn't support/compile some code I was using. I needed a working compiler on x64 Linux and poking inside gdc is not my favorite activity, so I updated ldc. > I guess there was confusion about DMD support for a particular host platform vs a particular target platform. If DMD does't even run or work correctly on 64-bit machines, even in 32-bit mode, (I don't know, as I don't use them) then yes, that indeed is a very major problem. > Thanks, > K.Wilson > > P.S. I also have access to a PPC Mac, so I guess that would be second on my list...I think Mac support in general would be nice. |
January 07, 2009 Re: dmd platform support - poll | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Nick Sabalausky | Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> I guess there was confusion about DMD support for a particular host platform vs a particular target platform. If DMD does't even run or work correctly on 64-bit machines, even in 32-bit mode, (I don't know, as I don't use them) then yes, that indeed is a very major problem.
I use 32 bit DMD on my Ubuntu 64 box, and it works fine.
|
January 08, 2009 Re: dmd platform support - poll | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter Bright | Walter Bright Wrote:
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> > I guess there was confusion about DMD support for a particular host platform vs a particular target platform. If DMD does't even run or work correctly on 64-bit machines, even in 32-bit mode, (I don't know, as I don't use them) then yes, that indeed is a very major problem.
>
> I use 32 bit DMD on my Ubuntu 64 box, and it works fine.
Strange, I have tried dmd on my Ubuntu 64 box and it doesn't work because of 64bit lib incompatibilities...I guess I have something messed up on that machine for 32bit libs?!?
I have since tried dmd on a Ubuntu 64 virtual machine and it does work, so my bad on that count.
Thanks,
K.Wilson
|
January 08, 2009 Re: dmd platform support - poll | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter Bright | Walter Bright Wrote:
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> > I guess there was confusion about DMD support for a particular host platform vs a particular target platform. If DMD does't even run or work correctly on 64-bit machines, even in 32-bit mode, (I don't know, as I don't use them) then yes, that indeed is a very major problem.
>
> I use 32 bit DMD on my Ubuntu 64 box, and it works fine.
Strange, I have tried dmd on my Ubuntu 64 box and it doesn't work because of 64bit lib incompatibilities...I guess I have something messed up on that machine for 32bit libs?!?
I have since tried dmd on a Ubuntu 64 virtual machine and it does work, so my bad on that count.
Thanks,
K.Wilson
|
January 11, 2009 Re: dmd platform support - poll | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter Bright | Syllable - would be nice to see native port of DMD |
February 27, 2009 Re: dmd platform support - poll | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter Bright | Hi Walter, I am embedded systems programmer. I crave to use D when I have to use C/C++. I would like to see dmd support cross-compilation for ARM(9) family. In my ideal world (dream :) ) 'gdc' would have been the main line for development and getting it to run on all the above mentioned platforms would be easy. AFAIK back-end support for gcc already supports - native x86 32 bit , .Net IL, bytecode etc. What I remember from computer language benchmarks performance of gdc was very close to dmd. [http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/debian/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=all] This is one very critical move which can make D mainstream language very soon. Anyway, you understand these details much better than me. |
February 27, 2009 Re: dmd platform support - poll | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to suresh | suresh: > In my ideal world (dream :) ) 'gdc' would have been the main line for development and getting it to run on all the above mentioned platforms would be easy. Also take a look at LDC: http://www.dsource.org/projects/ldc The backend doesn't support exceptions on Windows (the Linux64 and D2 versions, and the lack of support of Phobos will eventually be fixed by LDC developers, I presume). Bye, bearophile |
February 27, 2009 Re: dmd platform support - poll | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to suresh | On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 4:01 AM, suresh <sureshkrshukla@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Walter,
>
> I am embedded systems programmer. I crave to use D when I have to use C/C++.
>
> I would like to see dmd support cross-compilation for ARM(9) family.
Downs has gotten GDC to work on ARM at least to an extent. He was using it to make some stuff for the Nintendo DS. I wonder how stable/complete it is.
|
February 27, 2009 Re: dmd platform support - poll | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to bearophile | On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 4:19 AM, bearophile <bearophileHUGS@lycos.com> wrote:
> suresh:
>> In my ideal world (dream :) ) 'gdc' would have been the main line for development and getting it to run on all the above mentioned platforms would be easy.
>
> Also take a look at LDC:
> http://www.dsource.org/projects/ldc
> The backend doesn't support exceptions on Windows (the Linux64 and D2 versions, and the lack of support of Phobos will eventually be fixed by LDC developers, I presume).
I thought I heard that LDC works on 64-bit Linux. And geez, give them a break about D2 - it's still in alpha :P
|
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation