Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb: > 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. ;-)]
No. It actually proves that using 32 bit executables (and installer packages!) on 64 bit linux is a pain. On windows, we can cover with two installers Win2k (no idea about Win98) up to Win7 regardless if 32 or 64 bit, on linux things are much more compilcated. _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
