"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisp...@gmx.com> wrote in message news:mailman.1787.1298108224.4748.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... > On Saturday 19 February 2011 01:12:25 Russel Winder wrote: > > Am I correct in assuming that DMD generates 32-bit by default and that > > for 64-bit you have to give the -m64 option? > > > > Is the eventual plan to use the natural word length of the platform as > > the default, i.e. 32-bit on 32-bit and 64-bit on 64-bit, with the option > > to force something different using the -m option à la GCC? > > 32 bit is the default for now. I don't know what Walter intends to do in > the > long run. If it were like gcc, then the default platform would be the > platform > which the compiler is built for (which is exactly what it's doing right > now), > but as far as I know, Walter has no plans to port dmd to x86_64. > > So, for now 32 bit is the default. It may or may not change later to be > the > platform that you're building on. Ideally though, it would be like gcc and > we'd > actually get a 64 bit version of dmd at some point.
I don't mean this as "anti-64bit" trolling, just a genuine question, but what would be the point of a 64-bit build of DMD? (Note: I'm talking about host, not target). Just to compile projects that have (on the order of) gigabytes of source?