On Tue, 4 May 2010, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
On 4 May 2010 10:11, Florian Klaempfl <flor...@freepascal.org> wrote:
Because it has no advantage over a win32 executable (it is very unlikely
that the compiler needs more than 2 or 3 GB and a native win64 compiler
is slower due to bigger memoy footprint) and because it would require
additional release preparations.
BTW:
So why is there a native 64-bit Linux compiler? Shouldn't the same as
what you mentioned apply to the Linux platform too? [if not, then I
guess it's proof that the Windows platform is crap and slow. ;-)]
Installing 32-bit apps on 64-bit linux is asking for problems,
and doubly so when you must develop. So a native binary is preferred.
Personally, I would simply recompile a 64-bit FPC for windows
if I had to do 64-bit development on windows. Cross-compiling
is OK for small mobile devices, but not for mature platforms and
daily development.
Michael.
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
