On 2011-03-27 23:05, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On 2011-03-27 13:20, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-03-27 21:24, Ishan Thilina wrote:
@Jacob:
An error comes when the " ./dvm install dvm" command is given.
"
./dvm: error while loading shared libraries: libz.so.1: cannot open
shared object file: No such file or directory
You don't have libz installed? Oh, you're running 64bit, you need to
install 32bit libraries. I also forgot to mention that DVM currently
only installs the 32bit version of DMD. The 64bit version is quite new,
don't know if it's experimental, alpha or beta.
Probably alpha. I believe that it mostly works, but there are still plenty of
bugs to find, I'm sure.
However, depending on what you mean by "installing" the compiler, there is no
32-bit vs 64-bit version. Only the libraries differ. There is only a 32-bit
binary for the compiler, and you pass it -m64 if you want it to compile 64-bit
binaries. So, if your tool deals with the compiler only, then 32-bit vs 64-bit
is currently a moot point. On the other hand, if it deals with the standard
libraries too (as it probably does), then 32-bit vs 64-bit _is_ an issue, but
it isn't an issue for the compiler itself. And unless you're not using the
standard dmd.conf as part of switching compilers, there would already be a
difference in the library layout once 64-bit compilation was introduced, since
the 32-bit Phobos was moved from dmd2/linux/lib to dmd2/linux/lib32 (with the
64-bit version in dmd2/linux/lib64). And if you made the lib32 change, then
having it work with 64-bit is likely trivial. And if you didn't make such a
change, you're going to have to eventually. Personally, I don't see tha alpha
quality of the 64-bit code generation to be a reason not to support it. It's
been released. But then again, I don't use your tool at all and find no need
for it, so it's not like I'm one of your users.
- Jonathan M Davis
What I meant with "installing" is that he shouldn't expect to be able to
produce 64bit binaries with a DMD installed with my tool.
I have changed the tool to handle the lib -> lib32/lib64 change. It is a
trivial change to make the 64bit installation possible. The reason I
have made that change yet is a couple of reasons:
* I was planning to refactor the whole tool into a library and a tool
using that library. I was planning to wait with all the new
functionality until after the refactoring was done.
* I'm not 100% how I want the default behavior to be. When the 64bit is
mature enough that will probably be the default when running on a 64bit
machine and otherwise 32bit. I will also provide an option to installed
the non-native library as well. The question is, what should be the
default behavior now on a 64bit machine, 32bit or 64bit?
Yes, I do have a custom dmd.conf. No reason to put the "bin" folder in
an extra folder just because that's the layout in the zip file.
I guess you're right, that I shouldn't blame the current status of the
64bit code generation as a reason not to support installing it. Just
thought it was easier to explain it that way the more complete
explanation I gave here.
I do know that the compiler can produce both 32 and 64bit binaries and
the only difference is the standard library.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
