Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On 30.07.2014 21:46, Trass3r wrote: Is there a PR now? There is now: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/3843
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
Is there a PR now?
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On 22.05.2014 09:45, Kagamin wrote: On Thursday, 22 May 2014 at 06:28:14 UTC, Joakim wrote: On Thursday, 22 May 2014 at 06:16:54 UTC, Rainer Schuetze wrote: I recently considered making a pull request, but noticed an include dependency that failed to work for another PR, and got distracted. The updated compiler patches are here: https://github.com/rainers/dmd/tree/coff32 I think this is a really important pull for win32 support, still the most widely used platform on which D is available. Not everybody has the source for outside libraries or the time and inclination to recompile it to OMF using the Digital Mars toolchain. I think it would really help D to get this pull in soon. How would it work? Will it link D code with snn, msvcrt or both? It is supposed to link against MSVCRT. The druntime/phobos patches are here, though I'm expecting some discussions about used version identifiers: https://github.com/rainers/druntime/tree/coff32 https://github.com/rainers/phobos/tree/coff32
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On 22.05.2014 09:04, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote: On 22 May 2014 16:28, Joakim via Digitalmars-d wrote: On Thursday, 22 May 2014 at 06:16:54 UTC, Rainer Schuetze wrote: I recently considered making a pull request, but noticed an include dependency that failed to work for another PR, and got distracted. The updated compiler patches are here: https://github.com/rainers/dmd/tree/coff32 I think this is a really important pull for win32 support, still the most widely used platform on which D is available. Not everybody has the source for outside libraries or the time and inclination to recompile it to OMF using the Digital Mars toolchain. I think it would really help D to get this pull in soon. Yeah, it's a gigantic hole, and your work looks like it's almost there. Do you have any idea about the x64 SSE support and supporting that on x86 as well? Difficult? Practical? I don't know, will have to look into that. I always wondered why it isn't supported by x86 to start with.
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On 23 May 2014 01:45, Anonymous via Digitalmars-d wrote: > With VS2013 installed, I had an issue with the DMD installer's > config. mspdb*.dll are located in VC/bin, not VC/bin/x86_amd64, > and using -m64 caused a linker error. Adding %VCINSTALLDIR%\bin > to sc.ini's PATH fixed the problem and produced a working hello > world with -m64. The installer needs to be updated to be aware of VS2013's pathing. Bug it?
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
With VS2013 installed, I had an issue with the DMD installer's config. mspdb*.dll are located in VC/bin, not VC/bin/x86_amd64, and using -m64 caused a linker error. Adding %VCINSTALLDIR%\bin to sc.ini's PATH fixed the problem and produced a working hello world with -m64.
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On 21/05/2014 05:34, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote: On 21 May 2014 13:45, Temtaime via Digitalmars-d wrote: Yes, DMD uses ld on linux. It's OK because there is no other linker. And it's system's default. Everybody(almost) have GCC. But on windows.. MSVS is external IDE and toolset. Some people yes they uses MinGW. Why ? MSVS has some disadvantages for me for example it's poor C++11 support. So it's useless in my work. So for compile 64 app with DMD one must download dmd(~20 MB) and install MSVS(~2 GB). I think dmd should work out of the box isn't it ? It's still the standard on the platform. Interoperation with other libraries/code typically demands MSVC compatibility. I don't know how any large-scale Windows developers can avoid this practical reality? On the plus side, there is a recent push to get Clang/LLVM properly compatible with MSVC. When that happens, we should be able to rely on Clang+LDC for all windows needs. And what about other compilers ? Latest LDC for example uses 064 frontend. It's outdated for me because of bugs. I cannot ever compile my app now with it. With GDC it's alto difficult to get luck. Poke the GDC/LDC guys? It would certainly be nice if those toolchains were more reliably up-to-date, but the sad truth is, those who use MinGW on windows are in the severe minority, so there's probably not so much motivation. LDC on MingW doesn't seem to support debugging at all, and that's because of a LLVM issue, not LDC, so it doesn't matter how much LDC is up to date or not. According to Kai, "LLVM on MinGW is not very well tested." I had better hopes for GDC, and did poke the GDC guys (even put a bounty up - not that I think that amount of money would make any significant difference - it was more to show I really cared about this issue). But it seems GDC on Windows is not properly supported either (news://news.digitalmars.com:119/lkdnrr$j43$1...@digitalmars.com). It's not just an issue of build scripts and compiling binary releases, as I initially thought. Like you said, those like me, who use MinGW on Windows seem to be a severe minority. Having Clang/LLVM support MSVC toolchain would be great. And it would be *magnificent* if that included LLDB support! The reason I prefer MinGW on Windows is so that I can use a half-decent, open-source debugger. -- Bruno Medeiros https://twitter.com/brunodomedeiros
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On 22 May 2014 20:37, Kagamin via Digitalmars-d wrote: > Ah, ok, but druntime and phobos are compiled to link with snn, which has > functions absent in msvcrt like snvprintf and long double math functions. That doesn't seem to bother Win64...
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
Ah, ok, but druntime and phobos are compiled to link with snn, which has functions absent in msvcrt like snvprintf and long double math functions.
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On Thursday, 22 May 2014 at 07:45:17 UTC, Kagamin wrote: On Thursday, 22 May 2014 at 06:28:14 UTC, Joakim wrote: I think this is a really important pull for win32 support, still the most widely used platform on which D is available. Not everybody has the source for outside libraries or the time and inclination to recompile it to OMF using the Digital Mars toolchain. I think it would really help D to get this pull in soon. How would it work? Will it link D code with snn, msvcrt or both? Why would you need snn at that point? It's an OMF library. You'd do the same as Win64, use msvcrt.
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On Thursday, 22 May 2014 at 06:28:14 UTC, Joakim wrote: On Thursday, 22 May 2014 at 06:16:54 UTC, Rainer Schuetze wrote: I recently considered making a pull request, but noticed an include dependency that failed to work for another PR, and got distracted. The updated compiler patches are here: https://github.com/rainers/dmd/tree/coff32 I think this is a really important pull for win32 support, still the most widely used platform on which D is available. Not everybody has the source for outside libraries or the time and inclination to recompile it to OMF using the Digital Mars toolchain. I think it would really help D to get this pull in soon. How would it work? Will it link D code with snn, msvcrt or both?
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On Wednesday, 21 May 2014 at 03:45:42 UTC, Temtaime wrote: Yes, DMD uses ld on linux. It's OK because there is no other linker. And it's system's default. Everybody(almost) have GCC. It's still an external tool, without which dmd can't work. But on windows.. MSVS is external IDE and toolset. Do you want the windows dmd installed to download and install msvc automatically for you?
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On 22 May 2014 16:28, Joakim via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Thursday, 22 May 2014 at 06:16:54 UTC, Rainer Schuetze wrote: >> >> I recently considered making a pull request, but noticed an include >> dependency that failed to work for another PR, and got distracted. The >> updated compiler patches are here: >> https://github.com/rainers/dmd/tree/coff32 > > I think this is a really important pull for win32 support, still the most > widely used platform on which D is available. Not everybody has the source > for outside libraries or the time and inclination to recompile it to OMF > using the Digital Mars toolchain. I think it would really help D to get > this pull in soon. Yeah, it's a gigantic hole, and your work looks like it's almost there. Do you have any idea about the x64 SSE support and supporting that on x86 as well? Difficult? Practical?
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On Thursday, 22 May 2014 at 06:16:54 UTC, Rainer Schuetze wrote: I recently considered making a pull request, but noticed an include dependency that failed to work for another PR, and got distracted. The updated compiler patches are here: https://github.com/rainers/dmd/tree/coff32 I think this is a really important pull for win32 support, still the most widely used platform on which D is available. Not everybody has the source for outside libraries or the time and inclination to recompile it to OMF using the Digital Mars toolchain. I think it would really help D to get this pull in soon.
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On 21.05.2014 14:17, Brad Anderson wrote: On Wednesday, 21 May 2014 at 03:15:34 UTC, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote: On 21 May 2014 05:15, Temtaime via Digitalmars-d wrote: Sorry i misunderstood you. Yes dmd supports x64 on windows but it doesn't work without external tools. It's a main trouble i think. MSVC is the de facto standard toolset for Windows. How do you interoperate with any other conventional windows libraries if DMD is not MSVC compatible? This is the key development of DMD for Win64, and it's the only reason D is practically useful on Windows at all. I pine for the day that 32bit will get the same treatment. I believe Rainer did some work on extending COFF support to 32-bit. I'm not sure how far along he got. I recently considered making a pull request, but noticed an include dependency that failed to work for another PR, and got distracted. The updated compiler patches are here: https://github.com/rainers/dmd/tree/coff32
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On Wednesday, 21 May 2014 at 03:15:34 UTC, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote: On 21 May 2014 05:15, Temtaime via Digitalmars-d wrote: Sorry i misunderstood you. Yes dmd supports x64 on windows but it doesn't work without external tools. It's a main trouble i think. MSVC is the de facto standard toolset for Windows. How do you interoperate with any other conventional windows libraries if DMD is not MSVC compatible? This is the key development of DMD for Win64, and it's the only reason D is practically useful on Windows at all. I pine for the day that 32bit will get the same treatment. I believe Rainer did some work on extending COFF support to 32-bit. I'm not sure how far along he got.
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On Wednesday, 21 May 2014 at 03:45:42 UTC, Temtaime wrote: Yes, DMD uses ld on linux. It's OK because there is no other linker. And it's system's default. Everybody(almost) have GCC. But on windows.. MSVS is external IDE and toolset. Some people yes they uses MinGW. Why ? MSVS has some disadvantages for me for example it's poor C++11 support. So it's useless in my work. So for compile 64 app with DMD one must download dmd(~20 MB) and install MSVS(~2 GB). I think dmd should work out of the box isn't it ? And what about other compilers ? Latest LDC for example uses 064 frontend. It's outdated for me because of bugs. I cannot ever compile my app now with it. With GDC it's alto difficult to get luck. MSVC is the OS vendor's official tooling. Like XCode/clang on Mac OS X, xlc on Aix, aC++ on HP-UX, SunPro on Solaris and so forth. -- Paulo
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On 21 May 2014 13:45, Temtaime via Digitalmars-d wrote: > Yes, DMD uses ld on linux. It's OK because there is no other > linker. And it's system's default. Everybody(almost) have GCC. > > But on windows.. MSVS is external IDE and toolset. Some people > yes they uses MinGW. > Why ? MSVS has some disadvantages for me for example it's poor > C++11 support. So it's useless in my work. > > So for compile 64 app with DMD one must download dmd(~20 MB) and > install MSVS(~2 GB). > I think dmd should work out of the box isn't it ? It's still the standard on the platform. Interoperation with other libraries/code typically demands MSVC compatibility. I don't know how any large-scale Windows developers can avoid this practical reality? On the plus side, there is a recent push to get Clang/LLVM properly compatible with MSVC. When that happens, we should be able to rely on Clang+LDC for all windows needs. > And what about other compilers ? > Latest LDC for example uses 064 frontend. > > It's outdated for me because of bugs. I cannot ever compile my > app now with it. > With GDC it's alto difficult to get luck. Poke the GDC/LDC guys? It would certainly be nice if those toolchains were more reliably up-to-date, but the sad truth is, those who use MinGW on windows are in the severe minority, so there's probably not so much motivation.
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
Yes, DMD uses ld on linux. It's OK because there is no other linker. And it's system's default. Everybody(almost) have GCC. But on windows.. MSVS is external IDE and toolset. Some people yes they uses MinGW. Why ? MSVS has some disadvantages for me for example it's poor C++11 support. So it's useless in my work. So for compile 64 app with DMD one must download dmd(~20 MB) and install MSVS(~2 GB). I think dmd should work out of the box isn't it ? And what about other compilers ? Latest LDC for example uses 064 frontend. It's outdated for me because of bugs. I cannot ever compile my app now with it. With GDC it's alto difficult to get luck.
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On 21 May 2014 05:15, Temtaime via Digitalmars-d wrote: > Sorry i misunderstood you. > Yes dmd supports x64 on windows but it doesn't work without external tools. > It's a main trouble i think. MSVC is the de facto standard toolset for Windows. How do you interoperate with any other conventional windows libraries if DMD is not MSVC compatible? This is the key development of DMD for Win64, and it's the only reason D is practically useful on Windows at all. I pine for the day that 32bit will get the same treatment. The Microsoft linker is freely available, it produces debug output that's compatible with the majority of windows tooling, and it's generally good. If you argue that your environment is exclusive of MSVC (how so? do you use MinGW or something?), then surely the obvious thing to do is to NOT use DMD. Use GDC or LDC, which are better compilers, and link happily against MinGW code/libs. The only deficit I see in the Windows world is not having a useful Win32 compiler.
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On Tuesday, 20 May 2014 at 19:15:59 UTC, Temtaime wrote: Yes dmd supports x64 on windows but it doesn't work without external tools. DMD on Linux doesn't work without external tools (system GCC/ld) either. Microsoft provides the required tools for free and they are not difficult to install, so that shouldn't really be an argument. Maybe we need to improve on the related documentation, though. Best, David
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
Sorry i misunderstood you. Yes dmd supports x64 on windows but it doesn't work without external tools. It's a main trouble i think.
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On Tuesday, 20 May 2014 at 16:29:27 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic via Digitalmars-d wrote: On 5/20/14, Temtaime via Digitalmars-d wrote: Windows is out of favor for DMD's developers. Please stop spreading misinformation. - std.c.windows seriously outdated; third party libraries also outdated. - WinRT support non-existent, D language lacks the necessary constructs (automatic reference counting, asynchronous calls). ARM compiler not available. - 64 bit linker unavailable without Visual Studio; - Run-time library loading on Windows is bugs prone. - There is no consensus about how a GUI application must be built. Windows is by definition a GUI OS. You cannot say that you support Windows by limiting developers to build console applications only. Using third party libraries makes you think in anti-D patterns and results in big size executable files. D must first define some guidelines about a GUI application design and implement it for each OS. The Delphi or Lazarus approach can be used as a starting point.
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On Tuesday, 20 May 2014 at 18:47:46 UTC, Temtaime wrote: Please don't ask useful-less questions. One can tell all the advantages of 64 bits or you can use the Wikipedia. You might want to read my response again. I specifically asked "How does the current 64 bit version of DMD fall short of your needs?". To put it in simpler terms: DMD is available for x64 Windows right now. What else do you want? David
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
Please don't ask useful-less questions. One can tell all the advantages of 64 bits or you can use the Wikipedia.
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
Why mis ? For example. Linux : DMD can use GCC libs. DMD can compile and link 64 bit app. Windows : DMD cannot use both MSVC and MinGW libs. DMD cannot link 64 apps without installed MSVS. And it's stays there for a long time.
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On 5/20/14, Temtaime via Digitalmars-d wrote: > Windows is out of favor for DMD's developers. Please stop spreading misinformation.
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On Monday, 19 May 2014 at 17:59:43 UTC, steven kladitis wrote: I see that this thread is over 3 years old. I am totally enjoying D. I love assembler programming. I am just dissapointed that there is simple way to compile 64 bit code as of 2014 in windows. I am still unable to compile 64 bit in windows 7 or 8. How does the current 64 bit version of DMD fall short of your needs? David
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
Windows is out of favor for DMD's developers.
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On Wednesday, 14 May 2014 at 20:10:29 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote: On 5/14/2014 2:28 PM, steven kladitis wrote: On Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 13:53:36 UTC, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote: On 13 May 2014 23:24, steven kladitis via Digitalmars-d wrote: if the -m64 lets the compiled code use 64 bit registers and ints are now 64 bit then great! What is VC++, is it free? Pointers are 64bits. int is 32 bits, long is 64 bits. size_t is 64 bits. VC++ is Microsoft's compiler, DMD-x64 uses the de-facto standard Microsoft linker, since OPTLINK doesn't support 64bit. It is available for free. I have installed it and am still unable to compile a 64 bit D program. C:\d\dmd2\samples\d>dmd wc.d C:\d\dmd2\samples\d>dmd -m64 wc.d --- errorlevel -1073741515 If you use the Windows Installer for DMD after you've installed VC++, then it should automatically set everything up for you (I haven't tried it personally, but I know the DMD Win Installer people went to a lot of effort to make it work, so it should work). Oh, I forgot to mention, you'll also need to install the Microsoft's Windows SDK (not sure if that's automatically done when installing VC++ or not.) So after VC++ and the WinSDK are installed, then run DMD's Windows installer, and you should be good. Or you can manually setup DMD's sc.ini with the right paths to VC++ and the WinSDK (that's what I did), but it's probably easier to just run the DMD Windows Installer again after all the MS stuff is installed. I see that this thread is over 3 years old. I am totally enjoying D. I love assembler programming. I am just dissapointed that there is simple way to compile 64 bit code as of 2014 in windows. I am still unable to compile 64 bit in windows 7 or 8.
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On 5/14/2014 2:28 PM, steven kladitis wrote: On Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 13:53:36 UTC, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote: On 13 May 2014 23:24, steven kladitis via Digitalmars-d wrote: if the -m64 lets the compiled code use 64 bit registers and ints are now 64 bit then great! What is VC++, is it free? Pointers are 64bits. int is 32 bits, long is 64 bits. size_t is 64 bits. VC++ is Microsoft's compiler, DMD-x64 uses the de-facto standard Microsoft linker, since OPTLINK doesn't support 64bit. It is available for free. I have installed it and am still unable to compile a 64 bit D program. C:\d\dmd2\samples\d>dmd wc.d C:\d\dmd2\samples\d>dmd -m64 wc.d --- errorlevel -1073741515 If you use the Windows Installer for DMD after you've installed VC++, then it should automatically set everything up for you (I haven't tried it personally, but I know the DMD Win Installer people went to a lot of effort to make it work, so it should work). Oh, I forgot to mention, you'll also need to install the Microsoft's Windows SDK (not sure if that's automatically done when installing VC++ or not.) So after VC++ and the WinSDK are installed, then run DMD's Windows installer, and you should be good. Or you can manually setup DMD's sc.ini with the right paths to VC++ and the WinSDK (that's what I did), but it's probably easier to just run the DMD Windows Installer again after all the MS stuff is installed.
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On Wednesday, 14 May 2014 at 18:28:09 UTC, steven kladitis wrote: On Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 13:53:36 UTC, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote: VC++ is Microsoft's compiler, DMD-x64 uses the de-facto standard Microsoft linker, since OPTLINK doesn't support 64bit. It is available for free. I have installed it and am still unable to compile a 64 bit D program. C:\d\dmd2\samples\d>dmd wc.d C:\d\dmd2\samples\d>dmd -m64 wc.d --- errorlevel -1073741515 64-bit compilation on Windows doesn't work out of the box, because it uses the Microsoft linker and that requires its own setup. Here's how I did it: http://forum.dlang.org/thread/calbgg1wh95ysi-25ayl9wkn9tdnsuh2ignx9tjskfxyo87k...@mail.gmail.com#post-hvdyyutbgehlefluvsup:40forum.dlang.org
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 13:53:36 UTC, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote: On 13 May 2014 23:24, steven kladitis via Digitalmars-d wrote: On Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 13:16:50 UTC, steven kladitis wrote: On Monday, 12 May 2014 at 23:21:28 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote: On 5/12/2014 5:01 PM, Andrej Mitrovic via Digitalmars-d wrote: On 5/12/14, Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d wrote: You don't need a 64-bit version: Compiling 64-bit programs doesn't require a 64-bit compiler. Just install VC++, use the DMD 2.065 Win installer, and then toss in the -m64 flag when compiling. Works fine. Doesn't matter if DMD itself is 32-bit. As Vladimir in IRC reminded me, there is one use-case: You may need it for some intensive CTFE stuff (excessive memory allocations and no freeing by the compiler). That is, if you need more than 3/4 gigs. Right, there's certainly that. But that has nothing to do with whether you're trying to build a 64-bit or 32-bit program, and (at least for Windows) it isn't even an issue at all unless you actually are hitting that limit (unlikely for a newcomer to D). It sounded like steven kladitis was worried about just being able to create 64-bit programs. For that, it makes no difference if the compiler itself is a 32- or 64-bit build. dmd -m64 ( windows ) says \bin\link not found :) if the -m64 lets the compiled code use 64 bit registers and ints are now 64 bit then great! What is VC++, is it free? Pointers are 64bits. int is 32 bits, long is 64 bits. size_t is 64 bits. VC++ is Microsoft's compiler, DMD-x64 uses the de-facto standard Microsoft linker, since OPTLINK doesn't support 64bit. It is available for free. I have installed it and am still unable to compile a 64 bit D program. C:\d\dmd2\samples\d>dmd wc.d C:\d\dmd2\samples\d>dmd -m64 wc.d --- errorlevel -1073741515
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 16:43:26 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote: long is 32 bits. 64 http://dlang.org/type
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
"Manu via Digitalmars-d" wrote in message news:mailman.678.1399989216.2907.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... Pointers are 64bits. int is 32 bits, long is 64 bits. size_t is 64 bits. long is 32 bits.
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On 13 May 2014 23:24, steven kladitis via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 13:16:50 UTC, steven kladitis wrote: >> >> On Monday, 12 May 2014 at 23:21:28 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote: >>> >>> On 5/12/2014 5:01 PM, Andrej Mitrovic via Digitalmars-d wrote: On 5/12/14, Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d wrote: > > You don't need a 64-bit version: Compiling 64-bit programs doesn't > require a 64-bit compiler. Just install VC++, use the DMD 2.065 Win > installer, and then toss in the -m64 flag when compiling. Works fine. > Doesn't matter if DMD itself is 32-bit. As Vladimir in IRC reminded me, there is one use-case: You may need it for some intensive CTFE stuff (excessive memory allocations and no freeing by the compiler). That is, if you need more than 3/4 gigs. >>> >>> Right, there's certainly that. But that has nothing to do with whether >>> you're trying to build a 64-bit or 32-bit program, and (at least for >>> Windows) it isn't even an issue at all unless you actually are hitting that >>> limit (unlikely for a newcomer to D). It sounded like steven kladitis was >>> worried about just being able to create 64-bit programs. For that, it makes >>> no difference if the compiler itself is a 32- or 64-bit build. >> >> >> dmd -m64 ( windows ) says \bin\link not found :) > > > if the -m64 lets the compiled code use 64 bit registers and ints are now 64 > bit then great! What is VC++, is it free? Pointers are 64bits. int is 32 bits, long is 64 bits. size_t is 64 bits. VC++ is Microsoft's compiler, DMD-x64 uses the de-facto standard Microsoft linker, since OPTLINK doesn't support 64bit. It is available for free.
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 13:16:50 UTC, steven kladitis wrote: On Monday, 12 May 2014 at 23:21:28 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote: On 5/12/2014 5:01 PM, Andrej Mitrovic via Digitalmars-d wrote: On 5/12/14, Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d wrote: You don't need a 64-bit version: Compiling 64-bit programs doesn't require a 64-bit compiler. Just install VC++, use the DMD 2.065 Win installer, and then toss in the -m64 flag when compiling. Works fine. Doesn't matter if DMD itself is 32-bit. As Vladimir in IRC reminded me, there is one use-case: You may need it for some intensive CTFE stuff (excessive memory allocations and no freeing by the compiler). That is, if you need more than 3/4 gigs. Right, there's certainly that. But that has nothing to do with whether you're trying to build a 64-bit or 32-bit program, and (at least for Windows) it isn't even an issue at all unless you actually are hitting that limit (unlikely for a newcomer to D). It sounded like steven kladitis was worried about just being able to create 64-bit programs. For that, it makes no difference if the compiler itself is a 32- or 64-bit build. dmd -m64 ( windows ) says \bin\link not found :) if the -m64 lets the compiled code use 64 bit registers and ints are now 64 bit then great! What is VC++, is it free?
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On Monday, 12 May 2014 at 23:21:28 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote: On 5/12/2014 5:01 PM, Andrej Mitrovic via Digitalmars-d wrote: On 5/12/14, Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d wrote: You don't need a 64-bit version: Compiling 64-bit programs doesn't require a 64-bit compiler. Just install VC++, use the DMD 2.065 Win installer, and then toss in the -m64 flag when compiling. Works fine. Doesn't matter if DMD itself is 32-bit. As Vladimir in IRC reminded me, there is one use-case: You may need it for some intensive CTFE stuff (excessive memory allocations and no freeing by the compiler). That is, if you need more than 3/4 gigs. Right, there's certainly that. But that has nothing to do with whether you're trying to build a 64-bit or 32-bit program, and (at least for Windows) it isn't even an issue at all unless you actually are hitting that limit (unlikely for a newcomer to D). It sounded like steven kladitis was worried about just being able to create 64-bit programs. For that, it makes no difference if the compiler itself is a 32- or 64-bit build. dmd -m64 ( windows ) says \bin\link not found :)
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On 5/12/2014 5:01 PM, Andrej Mitrovic via Digitalmars-d wrote: On 5/12/14, Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d wrote: You don't need a 64-bit version: Compiling 64-bit programs doesn't require a 64-bit compiler. Just install VC++, use the DMD 2.065 Win installer, and then toss in the -m64 flag when compiling. Works fine. Doesn't matter if DMD itself is 32-bit. As Vladimir in IRC reminded me, there is one use-case: You may need it for some intensive CTFE stuff (excessive memory allocations and no freeing by the compiler). That is, if you need more than 3/4 gigs. Right, there's certainly that. But that has nothing to do with whether you're trying to build a 64-bit or 32-bit program, and (at least for Windows) it isn't even an issue at all unless you actually are hitting that limit (unlikely for a newcomer to D). It sounded like steven kladitis was worried about just being able to create 64-bit programs. For that, it makes no difference if the compiler itself is a 32- or 64-bit build.
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On 5/12/14, Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d wrote: > You don't need a 64-bit version: Compiling 64-bit programs doesn't > require a 64-bit compiler. Just install VC++, use the DMD 2.065 Win > installer, and then toss in the -m64 flag when compiling. Works fine. > Doesn't matter if DMD itself is 32-bit. As Vladimir in IRC reminded me, there is one use-case: You may need it for some intensive CTFE stuff (excessive memory allocations and no freeing by the compiler). That is, if you need more than 3/4 gigs.
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On 5/12/2014 2:04 PM, steven kladitis wrote: On Monday, 12 May 2014 at 17:46:21 UTC, Kapps wrote: On Monday, 12 May 2014 at 16:47:21 UTC, steven kladitis wrote: It is NOT just for memory addressing , wchi is very simple under 64 bit, but also 64 bit registers, 16 of them , not just 8 32 bit. I think there should be a 64 bit version. This topic is 3 years old, DMD can already generate 64-bit programs on Windows (although I don't think DMD itself is 64-bit). I still only see 32 bit version for Windows. I admit I have a 32 bit laptop , over 10 years old :) . All other laptops and pcs I have are 64 bit processors. If anyone out there has a 64 bit; version 2.065 , for windows let me know. You don't need a 64-bit version: Compiling 64-bit programs doesn't require a 64-bit compiler. Just install VC++, use the DMD 2.065 Win installer, and then toss in the -m64 flag when compiling. Works fine. Doesn't matter if DMD itself is 32-bit.
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On Monday, 12 May 2014 at 17:46:21 UTC, Kapps wrote: On Monday, 12 May 2014 at 16:47:21 UTC, steven kladitis wrote: It is NOT just for memory addressing , wchi is very simple under 64 bit, but also 64 bit registers, 16 of them , not just 8 32 bit. I think there should be a 64 bit version. This topic is 3 years old, DMD can already generate 64-bit programs on Windows (although I don't think DMD itself is 64-bit). I still only see 32 bit version for Windows. I admit I have a 32 bit laptop , over 10 years old :) . All other laptops and pcs I have are 64 bit processors. If anyone out there has a 64 bit; version 2.065 , for windows let me know.
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On Monday, 12 May 2014 at 16:47:21 UTC, steven kladitis wrote: It is NOT just for memory addressing , wchi is very simple under 64 bit, but also 64 bit registers, 16 of them , not just 8 32 bit. I think there should be a 64 bit version. This topic is 3 years old, DMD can already generate 64-bit programs on Windows (although I don't think DMD itself is 64-bit).
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On Thursday, 15 December 2011 at 21:05:05 UTC, captaindet wrote: On 2011-12-15 04:47, torhu wrote: On 14.12.2011 12:54, dmd.20.browse...@xoxy.net wrote: Hi, Is there a 64-bit version of DMD for windows? The download page offers only an x86 version. Or am I reading too much into that? Cheers, buk There's not much you would need a 64-bit compiler for on Windows. What are you going to use it for? now what is this for a strange comment? you need 64bit for windows for the same reasons than for any other platform: accessing loads of mem. yes, for some this is really important! for me it is actually a dealbreaker - i'd love to use D for my scientific programming, but my datasets often reach several GB... my computer has 16GB and i intend to make use of them. det It is NOT just for memory addressing , wchi is very simple under 64 bit, but also 64 bit registers, 16 of them , not just 8 32 bit. I think there should be a 64 bit version.
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On 12/18/11 5:11 PM, dmd.20.browse...@xoxy.net wrote: On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 23:20:50 -, Trass3r - u...@known.com <+dmd+browseruk+31526d5b7d.un#known@spamgourmet.com> wrote: It's a shame that a) you guys apparently cannot imagine a use for a 64-bit D on Windows. I don't think that argument has been seriously aired. Our trouble with Win64 generation is purely technological. Our toolchain would need major rework to approach that. b) the interfaces to this newsgroup are virtually impossible to use. The NNTP interface works as well as NNTP itself works, so I think it the generalization is unfair. Most people including myself agree that the current web bridge sucks, and Vladimir Panteleev actually did something about it: http://dfeed.kimsufi.thecybershadow.net/discussion/group/digitalmars.D. We plan to integrate that after the holiday season. c) The only response from Mr Bright on the subject is "people are still using 16-bit". That was but a side discussion. The situation is rather well known - accommodating Win64's object file format would be difficult. I've been following along with for must be close to 5 years now, waiting for it to mature into a usable, production quality product. I see I am once again too early. Unfortunately I wouldn't be able to say Win64 generation will be done soon, or when it will be done. But this is not an issue of attitude of carelessness. Thanks, Andrei
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 23:20:50 -, Trass3r - u...@known.com <+dmd+browseruk+31526d5b7d.un#known@spamgourmet.com> wrote: It's a shame that a) you guys apparently cannot imagine a use for a 64-bit D on Windows. b) the interfaces to this newsgroup are virtually impossible to use. c) The only response from Mr Bright on the subject is "people are still using 16-bit". I've been following along with for must be close to 5 years now, waiting for it to mature into a usable, production quality product. I see I am once again too early. buk
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 11:14:51 -0800, torhu wrote: On 17.12.2011 19:05, Andrej Mitrovic wrote: Windows still ships with edit, which has more features than notepad. Heheh. cmd.exe /c edit Makes me wonder what it's for, can you run a Windows server without the GUI? Starting with Windows Server 2008 there is something called the Server Core role, which has no GUI. And they've been improving it ever since. MS is having a back-to-the-basics push internally right now. -- Adam Wilson Project Coordinator The Horizon Project http://www.thehorizonproject.org/
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On 17.12.2011 18:21, Bane wrote: Trass3r Wrote: > DOS software can be more productive, since it's often keyboard-only. How is that different from a Windows console app? No Solitare, Facebook... much more productive! Most likely they're running the DOS app in a window in Windows, but that's a good point.
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On 17.12.2011 19:05, Andrej Mitrovic wrote: Windows still ships with edit, which has more features than notepad. Heheh. cmd.exe /c edit Makes me wonder what it's for, can you run a Windows server without the GUI?
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
Windows still ships with edit, which has more features than notepad. Heheh. cmd.exe /c edit
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
Trass3r Wrote: > > DOS software can be more productive, since it's often keyboard-only. > > How is that different from a Windows console app? No Solitare, Facebook... much more productive!
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On 17.12.2011 17:59, torhu wrote: On 17.12.2011 16:37, Trass3r wrote: DOS software can be more productive, since it's often keyboard-only. How is that different from a Windows console app? From an interface point of view, it's basically the same thing. They both support character graphics (like ncurses). Internally, they wouldn't have anything in common at all. The only commercial application I can think of that runs in the Windows console and uses character graphics is Far Manager. 20 years there were lots of applications like that, but they ran on top of DOS instead of Windows.
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On 17.12.2011 16:37, Trass3r wrote: DOS software can be more productive, since it's often keyboard-only. How is that different from a Windows console app? From an interface point of view, it's basically the same thing. They both support character graphics (like ncurses). Internally, they wouldn't have anything in common at all.
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
DOS software can be more productive, since it's often keyboard-only. How is that different from a Windows console app?
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On 17.12.2011 04:26, Trass3r wrote: My girlfriend is interviewing for a job at a major government company here in Norway, and was told that she'd need to use DOS at work. Likely some ancient software that no-one's ever wanted to try and upgrade. What is wrong with this world? ;) DOS software can be more productive, since it's often keyboard-only. It all depends, of course. Might be a FoxPro app or something.
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
My girlfriend is interviewing for a job at a major government company here in Norway, and was told that she'd need to use DOS at work. Likely some ancient software that no-one's ever wanted to try and upgrade. What is wrong with this world? ;)
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 18:59:43 +0100, Nick Sabalausky wrote: "Nick Sabalausky" wrote in message news:jcg0q8$145v$1...@digitalmars.com... "Jonathan M Davis" wrote in message news:mailman.1595.1324029407.24802.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... And considering that there are no x86 chips sold these days which aren't x86_64, I find it rather baffling that Microsoft even sells a 32-bit version of Windows. (Chips sold) != (Chips in use) Why would MS want to give a big F.U. to someone who wants to give MS money but isn't buying new hardware? Wouldn't make any sense. Also, the 64-bit versions can't run 16-bit software, and yes, I know that's getting *really*, *really* old, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are people out there (companies, especially) that are still relying on something 16-bit. My girlfriend is interviewing for a job at a major government company here in Norway, and was told that she'd need to use DOS at work. Likely some ancient software that no-one's ever wanted to try and upgrade.
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 05:47:54 -0500, torhu wrote: On 14.12.2011 12:54, dmd.20.browse...@xoxy.net wrote: Hi, Is there a 64-bit version of DMD for windows? The download page offers only an x86 version. Or am I reading too much into that? Cheers, buk There's not much you would need a 64-bit compiler for on Windows. What are you going to use it for? Linking to 64-bit programs. Also, I work on GPGPU medical imaging problems and I have run my 3GB Tesla card out of ram on occasion.
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
"Walter Bright" wrote in message news:jcg1k1$15kk$2...@digitalmars.com... > On 12/16/2011 9:59 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> Also, the 64-bit versions can't run 16-bit software, and yes, I know >> that's >> getting *really*, *really* old, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are >> people out there (companies, especially) that are still relying on >> something >> 16-bit. (In case anyone's wondering, and I'm sure some people are ;) : >> No, >> I'm not personally using Windows's 16-bit compatability for anything.) > > I still have some customers using DMC for 16 bit work, and I still run DMC > through all those tests. > See, everyone! There's people (plural, apparently!) even more anachronistic than me! ;)
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On Friday, 16 December 2011 at 18:01:21 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote: No, I'm not personally using Windows's 16-bit compatability for anything.) One of the reasons I like Digital Mars is the compiler still targets 16 bit. (That was hugely important as a newb, and I don't use it much anymore, but it's very nice to have when I still want it.) When I tried college round two, assembly language class did 16 bit DOS programs too, running on Windows, of course. This was... I think 2007.
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On 12/16/2011 9:59 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: Also, the 64-bit versions can't run 16-bit software, and yes, I know that's getting *really*, *really* old, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are people out there (companies, especially) that are still relying on something 16-bit. (In case anyone's wondering, and I'm sure some people are ;) : No, I'm not personally using Windows's 16-bit compatability for anything.) I still have some customers using DMC for 16 bit work, and I still run DMC through all those tests.
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
"Nick Sabalausky" wrote in message news:jcg0q8$145v$1...@digitalmars.com... > "Jonathan M Davis" wrote in message > news:mailman.1595.1324029407.24802.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... >> >> And considering that there are no x86 chips sold these days which aren't >> x86_64, I find it rather baffling that Microsoft even sells a 32-bit >> version of >> Windows. > > (Chips sold) != (Chips in use) > > Why would MS want to give a big F.U. to someone who wants to give MS money > but isn't buying new hardware? Wouldn't make any sense. > Also, the 64-bit versions can't run 16-bit software, and yes, I know that's getting *really*, *really* old, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are people out there (companies, especially) that are still relying on something 16-bit. (In case anyone's wondering, and I'm sure some people are ;) : No, I'm not personally using Windows's 16-bit compatability for anything.)
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
"Jonathan M Davis" wrote in message news:mailman.1595.1324029407.24802.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... > > And considering that there are no x86 chips sold these days which aren't > x86_64, I find it rather baffling that Microsoft even sells a 32-bit > version of > Windows. (Chips sold) != (Chips in use) Why would MS want to give a big F.U. to someone who wants to give MS money but isn't buying new hardware? Wouldn't make any sense.
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
Il giorno ven, 16/12/2011 alle 07.14 -0500, a ha scritto: > Jakob Ovrum Wrote: > > > On Friday, 16 December 2011 at 09:56:47 UTC, Jonathan M Davis > > wrote: > > > considering that there are no x86 chips sold these days which > > > aren't x86_64, I find it rather baffling that Microsoft even > > > sells a 32-bit version of Windows. > > > > This is simply not true. I don't know about processors sold > > separately, but many netbooks and laptops still come with 32 bit > > processors. > > New laptops and netbooks don't. Even recent (less than two years old) > versions of intel atom are x86_64. It says "instruction set" 32 bit. Released on Q2 2011... http://ark.intel.com/products/55663/
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On Friday, 16 December 2011 at 12:14:50 UTC, a wrote: Jakob Ovrum Wrote: On Friday, 16 December 2011 at 09:56:47 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > considering that there are no x86 chips sold these days > which aren't x86_64, I find it rather baffling that > Microsoft even sells a 32-bit version of Windows. This is simply not true. I don't know about processors sold separately, but many netbooks and laptops still come with 32 bit processors. New laptops and netbooks don't. Even recent (less than two years old) versions of intel atom are x86_64. The keyword here is "sold", and besides, IA32 is still extremely common on cheap netbooks and laptops, even some recent models. The Atom line having 64 bit models doesn't mean a whole lot for the present reality. 32-bit x86 is definitely disappearing, but there is a long road ahead and 32 bit x86 is still ubiquitous. And I bet if you counted all the offices using Windows around the world, you'd find the vast majority of them using 32-bit hardware. There's no reason Microsoft shouldn't offer upgrade opportunities for that userbase as long as their new OS' work fine on old hardware.
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
Jakob Ovrum Wrote: > On Friday, 16 December 2011 at 09:56:47 UTC, Jonathan M Davis > wrote: > > considering that there are no x86 chips sold these days which > > aren't x86_64, I find it rather baffling that Microsoft even > > sells a 32-bit version of Windows. > > This is simply not true. I don't know about processors sold > separately, but many netbooks and laptops still come with 32 bit > processors. New laptops and netbooks don't. Even recent (less than two years old) versions of intel atom are x86_64.
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
Some intel atoms still use 32-bit architecture. Il giorno ven, 16/12/2011 alle 02.48 -0800, Jonathan M Davis ha scritto: > On Friday, December 16, 2011 11:09:25 Jakob Ovrum wrote: > > On Friday, 16 December 2011 at 09:56:47 UTC, Jonathan M Davis > > > > wrote: > > > considering that there are no x86 chips sold these days which > > > aren't x86_64, I find it rather baffling that Microsoft even > > > sells a 32-bit version of Windows. > > > > This is simply not true. I don't know about processors sold > > separately, but many netbooks and laptops still come with 32 bit > > processors. > > Hmm. That's the first I've heard of 32-bit x86 processors in ages. All of the > ones that I've seen or heard about for quite a while have been x86_64, even > if > they're running 32-bit Windows. The only 32-bit processors that I've heard > about are ARM processors. I guess that I don't pay enough attention to that > sort of stuff. > > - Jonathan M Davis
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On Friday, December 16, 2011 11:09:25 Jakob Ovrum wrote: > On Friday, 16 December 2011 at 09:56:47 UTC, Jonathan M Davis > > wrote: > > considering that there are no x86 chips sold these days which > > aren't x86_64, I find it rather baffling that Microsoft even > > sells a 32-bit version of Windows. > > This is simply not true. I don't know about processors sold > separately, but many netbooks and laptops still come with 32 bit > processors. Hmm. That's the first I've heard of 32-bit x86 processors in ages. All of the ones that I've seen or heard about for quite a while have been x86_64, even if they're running 32-bit Windows. The only 32-bit processors that I've heard about are ARM processors. I guess that I don't pay enough attention to that sort of stuff. - Jonathan M Davis
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On 16.12.2011 10:17, Jacob Carlborg wrote: On 2011-12-16 10:10, torhu wrote: On 16.12.2011 00:35, Mehrdad wrote: On 12/15/2011 3:20 PM, Trass3r wrote: dealbreaker - i'd love to use D for my scientific programming, but my datasets often reach several GB... my computer has 16GB and i intend to make use of them. Scientific programming on Windoze? You can't be serious :P lol, that's not even the only issue. 32-bit programs can't show 64-bit dialogs. So "Open this file..." actually shows the SysWOW64 folder instead of the System32 folder, and there's _no way_ to bypass this unless you build a 64-bit app. Most people are not actually doing scientific programming. And they don't actually need to open an open file dialog to access files that are in the "real" System32. But if they do, there are several easy solutions.[1] Another reason for needing a 64-bit program on Windows would be if you are creating a shell extension. TortoiseSVN comes in both 32-bit and 64-bit flavors for this reason. People coming from Linux are accustomed to a running only 64-bit programs if they have a 64-bit OS. That's simply because Linux is usually distributed through downloading. To limit the download size, they leave out the 32-bit versions of libraries. Which means you can't actually run 32-bit programs without downloading and installing the packages containing those libraries first. At least that's my understanding. This issue doesn't exist on Windows. Probably not on OS X either, but I'm not too familiar with that system. Mac OS X has universal binaries, that is, libraries and executables containing code for multiple architectures. All system libraries bundled with the OS are compiled (at least) both for 32 and 64bit. This makes it no problem running either 32 or 64bit applications, the user don't have to know or care. I know that much, but I wasn't sure why they were so keen on having 64 bit versions of apps. Maybe just to accelerate the switch to 64-bits by making it easier for developers to support both. And now they have started to leave things like Carbon behind in 32-bit land. At least you can't say that Apple isn't moving forward.
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On Friday, 16 December 2011 at 09:56:47 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: considering that there are no x86 chips sold these days which aren't x86_64, I find it rather baffling that Microsoft even sells a 32-bit version of Windows. This is simply not true. I don't know about processors sold separately, but many netbooks and laptops still come with 32 bit processors.
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On Friday, December 16, 2011 10:10:57 torhu wrote: > On 16.12.2011 00:35, Mehrdad wrote: > > On 12/15/2011 3:20 PM, Trass3r wrote: > >>> dealbreaker - i'd love to use D for my scientific programming, but > >>> my > >>> datasets often reach several GB... > >>> > >>> my computer has 16GB and i intend to make use of them. > >> > >> Scientific programming on Windoze? You can't be serious :P > > > > lol, that's not even the only issue. > > > > 32-bit programs can't show 64-bit dialogs. So "Open this file..." > > actually shows the SysWOW64 folder instead of the System32 folder, and > > there's _no way_ to bypass this unless you build a 64-bit app. > > Most people are not actually doing scientific programming. And they > don't actually need to open an open file dialog to access files that are > in the "real" System32. But if they do, there are several easy > solutions.[1] Another reason for needing a 64-bit program on Windows > would be if you are creating a shell extension. TortoiseSVN comes in > both 32-bit and 64-bit flavors for this reason. > > People coming from Linux are accustomed to a running only 64-bit > programs if they have a 64-bit OS. That's simply because Linux is > usually distributed through downloading. To limit the download size, > they leave out the 32-bit versions of libraries. Which means you can't > actually run 32-bit programs without downloading and installing the > packages containing those libraries first. At least that's my > understanding. On Linux, there's frequently no point in having 32-bit libraries installed. Everything is built for the native architecture, so why bother having the 32- bit libraries if they're not needed? There are the occasional exception - such as if you want to run wine in 32-bit mode, but even that can be in 64-bit now (though the risk of it not being appropriately compatible with Windows programs is greater in 64-bit, since it's newer). I would fully expect Windows to run 32-bit programs, but I would also think that 64-bit programs would become the norm such that there would eventually be no reason to have 32-bit programs aside from legacy stuff which isn't rebuilt. And considering that there are no x86 chips sold these days which aren't x86_64, I find it rather baffling that Microsoft even sells a 32-bit version of Windows. As long as the 64-bit versions runs the 32-bit programs properly, I don't see any point in having a 32-bit version of the OS - especially computers increasingly have too much memory to be able to use it all with a 32-bit OS. - Jonathan M Davis
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On 2011-12-16 10:24, Walter Bright wrote: On 12/16/2011 1:17 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote: On 2011-12-16 10:10, torhu wrote: People coming from Linux are accustomed to a running only 64-bit programs if they have a 64-bit OS. That's simply because Linux is usually distributed through downloading. To limit the download size, they leave out the 32-bit versions of libraries. Which means you can't actually run 32-bit programs without downloading and installing the packages containing those libraries first. At least that's my understanding. This issue doesn't exist on Windows. Probably not on OS X either, but I'm not too familiar with that system. Mac OS X has universal binaries, that is, libraries and executables containing code for multiple architectures. All system libraries bundled with the OS are compiled (at least) both for 32 and 64bit. This makes it no problem running either 32 or 64bit applications, the user don't have to know or care. The Mac "universal" binaries are simply the 32 bit and 64 bit versions concatenated into one file. It doesn't save on download size. Exactly, I didn't say anything else. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On 12/16/2011 1:17 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote: On 2011-12-16 10:10, torhu wrote: People coming from Linux are accustomed to a running only 64-bit programs if they have a 64-bit OS. That's simply because Linux is usually distributed through downloading. To limit the download size, they leave out the 32-bit versions of libraries. Which means you can't actually run 32-bit programs without downloading and installing the packages containing those libraries first. At least that's my understanding. This issue doesn't exist on Windows. Probably not on OS X either, but I'm not too familiar with that system. Mac OS X has universal binaries, that is, libraries and executables containing code for multiple architectures. All system libraries bundled with the OS are compiled (at least) both for 32 and 64bit. This makes it no problem running either 32 or 64bit applications, the user don't have to know or care. The Mac "universal" binaries are simply the 32 bit and 64 bit versions concatenated into one file. It doesn't save on download size.
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On 2011-12-16 10:10, torhu wrote: On 16.12.2011 00:35, Mehrdad wrote: On 12/15/2011 3:20 PM, Trass3r wrote: dealbreaker - i'd love to use D for my scientific programming, but my datasets often reach several GB... my computer has 16GB and i intend to make use of them. Scientific programming on Windoze? You can't be serious :P lol, that's not even the only issue. 32-bit programs can't show 64-bit dialogs. So "Open this file..." actually shows the SysWOW64 folder instead of the System32 folder, and there's _no way_ to bypass this unless you build a 64-bit app. Most people are not actually doing scientific programming. And they don't actually need to open an open file dialog to access files that are in the "real" System32. But if they do, there are several easy solutions.[1] Another reason for needing a 64-bit program on Windows would be if you are creating a shell extension. TortoiseSVN comes in both 32-bit and 64-bit flavors for this reason. People coming from Linux are accustomed to a running only 64-bit programs if they have a 64-bit OS. That's simply because Linux is usually distributed through downloading. To limit the download size, they leave out the 32-bit versions of libraries. Which means you can't actually run 32-bit programs without downloading and installing the packages containing those libraries first. At least that's my understanding. This issue doesn't exist on Windows. Probably not on OS X either, but I'm not too familiar with that system. Mac OS X has universal binaries, that is, libraries and executables containing code for multiple architectures. All system libraries bundled with the OS are compiled (at least) both for 32 and 64bit. This makes it no problem running either 32 or 64bit applications, the user don't have to know or care. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On 16.12.2011 00:35, Mehrdad wrote: On 12/15/2011 3:20 PM, Trass3r wrote: dealbreaker - i'd love to use D for my scientific programming, but my datasets often reach several GB... my computer has 16GB and i intend to make use of them. Scientific programming on Windoze? You can't be serious :P lol, that's not even the only issue. 32-bit programs can't show 64-bit dialogs. So "Open this file..." actually shows the SysWOW64 folder instead of the System32 folder, and there's _no way_ to bypass this unless you build a 64-bit app. Most people are not actually doing scientific programming. And they don't actually need to open an open file dialog to access files that are in the "real" System32. But if they do, there are several easy solutions.[1] Another reason for needing a 64-bit program on Windows would be if you are creating a shell extension. TortoiseSVN comes in both 32-bit and 64-bit flavors for this reason. People coming from Linux are accustomed to a running only 64-bit programs if they have a 64-bit OS. That's simply because Linux is usually distributed through downloading. To limit the download size, they leave out the 32-bit versions of libraries. Which means you can't actually run 32-bit programs without downloading and installing the packages containing those libraries first. At least that's my understanding. This issue doesn't exist on Windows. Probably not on OS X either, but I'm not too familiar with that system. So when people ask for 64-bit versions without stating why they need it, I always have to ask what features they want that the 32-bit version doesn't have. [1] http://www.ghisler.ch/wiki/index.php/Some_Files_and_Folders_Shown_by_Windows_Explorer_Are_Not_Shown_by_Total_Commander!#Solutions
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On 12/15/2011 3:20 PM, Trass3r wrote: dealbreaker - i'd love to use D for my scientific programming, but my datasets often reach several GB... my computer has 16GB and i intend to make use of them. Scientific programming on Windoze? You can't be serious :P lol, that's not even the only issue. 32-bit programs can't show 64-bit dialogs. So "Open this file..." actually shows the SysWOW64 folder instead of the System32 folder, and there's _no way_ to bypass this unless you build a 64-bit app.
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
dealbreaker - i'd love to use D for my scientific programming, but my datasets often reach several GB... my computer has 16GB and i intend to make use of them. Scientific programming on Windoze? You can't be serious :P
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On Thursday, 15 December 2011 at 21:05:05 UTC, captaindet wrote: On 2011-12-15 04:47, torhu wrote: On 14.12.2011 12:54, dmd.20.browse...@xoxy.net wrote: Hi, Is there a 64-bit version of DMD for windows? The download page offers only an x86 version. Or am I reading too much into that? Cheers, buk There's not much you would need a 64-bit compiler for on Windows. What are you going to use it for? now what is this for a strange comment? you need 64bit for windows for the same reasons than for any other platform: accessing loads of mem. yes, for some this is really important! for me it is actually a dealbreaker - i'd love to use D for my scientific programming, but my datasets often reach several GB... my computer has 16GB and i intend to make use of them. det Use Linux.. it's better for your health ;p jk, I'm eagerly awaiting a Win64 DMD as well.
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On Wednesday, December 14, 2011 11:54:41 dmd.20.browse...@xoxy.net wrote: > Hi, > > Is there a 64-bit version of DMD for windows? > > The download page offers only an x86 version. Or am I reading too much > into that? The linker on Windows is currently only 32-bit, so the rest of the toolchain is 32-bit only. Linux was the first to get 64-bit support, because it was by far the easiest (since it uses gcc rather than dmc and optlink). FreeBSD and now Mac OS X have it as well. Windows will get it eventually, but it's a lot more work, so it could be a while. - Jonathan M Davis
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On 2011-12-15 04:47, torhu wrote: On 14.12.2011 12:54, dmd.20.browse...@xoxy.net wrote: Hi, Is there a 64-bit version of DMD for windows? The download page offers only an x86 version. Or am I reading too much into that? Cheers, buk There's not much you would need a 64-bit compiler for on Windows. What are you going to use it for? now what is this for a strange comment? you need 64bit for windows for the same reasons than for any other platform: accessing loads of mem. yes, for some this is really important! for me it is actually a dealbreaker - i'd love to use D for my scientific programming, but my datasets often reach several GB... my computer has 16GB and i intend to make use of them. det
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On 15-12-2011 11:47, torhu wrote: On 14.12.2011 12:54, dmd.20.browse...@xoxy.net wrote: Hi, Is there a 64-bit version of DMD for windows? The download page offers only an x86 version. Or am I reading too much into that? Cheers, buk There's not much you would need a 64-bit compiler for on Windows. What are you going to use it for? Um, to build 64-bit programs? What else... - Alex
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On 14.12.2011 12:54, dmd.20.browse...@xoxy.net wrote: Hi, Is there a 64-bit version of DMD for windows? The download page offers only an x86 version. Or am I reading too much into that? Cheers, buk There's not much you would need a 64-bit compiler for on Windows. What are you going to use it for?
Re: 64-bit DMD for windows?
On Wednesday, 14 December 2011 at 18:20:04 UTC, dmd.20.browse...@xoxy.net wrote: Hi, Is there a 64-bit version of DMD for windows? The download page offers only an x86 version. Or am I reading too much into that? Cheers, buk Hi! DMD currently does not target 64-bit Windows. You may have some luck with GDC (there is a 64-bit build from July in Downloads): https://bitbucket.org/goshawk/gdc
64-bit DMD for windows?
Hi, Is there a 64-bit version of DMD for windows? The download page offers only an x86 version. Or am I reading too much into that? Cheers, buk
