"Alex Rønne Petersen" wrote in message
news:jcdep3$2gs3$1...@digitalmars.com...
>
> being on a 32-bit OS from 2001
https://www.semitwist.com/articles/article/view/why-use-a-10-year-old-os-!
On 12/15/2011 4:40 AM, Michel Fortin wrote:
It's one thing to ask developers to use 64-bit machines for development, it's
another to say to developers they can't target 32-bit users if they choose to
use DMD. Even Apple ships everything with dual architecture binaries these days,
and some of Appl
On 15-12-2011 18:04, Somedude wrote:
Le 14/12/2011 11:07, Alex Rønne Petersen a écrit :
No point maintaining something that won't be used. I would also imagine
that it can't be long before Windows stops supporting 32-bit.
- Alex
You imagine wrong. A large percentage of Windows users are stil
Le 14/12/2011 11:07, Alex Rønne Petersen a écrit :
>
> No point maintaining something that won't be used. I would also imagine
> that it can't be long before Windows stops supporting 32-bit.
>
> - Alex
You imagine wrong. A large percentage of Windows users are still on Win
XP 32 bits (like me).
On 2011-12-14 18:28:07 +, Walter Bright said:
On 12/14/2011 3:09 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-12-14 11:54, Walter Bright wrote:
It makes me wonder if we need to support 32 bit generation on OSX at all.
Yeah, I wonder that too. But does it hurt/cause problems to do? I mean, it's
alre
On 2011-12-15 07:22:47 +, Jacob Carlborg said:
On 2011-12-14 19:28, Walter Bright wrote:
On 12/14/2011 3:09 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-12-14 11:54, Walter Bright wrote:
It makes me wonder if we need to support 32 bit generation on OSX at
all.
Yeah, I wonder that too. But does it
On 2011-12-14 19:28, Walter Bright wrote:
On 12/14/2011 3:09 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-12-14 11:54, Walter Bright wrote:
It makes me wonder if we need to support 32 bit generation on OSX at
all.
Yeah, I wonder that too. But does it hurt/cause problems to do? I
mean, it's
already suppor
On 12/14/2011 09:51 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 14-12-2011 14:11, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 December 2011 at 11:07:22 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen
wrote:
No point maintaining something that won't be used. I would also
imagine that it can't be long before Windows stops support
On 12/14/2011 3:09 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-12-14 11:54, Walter Bright wrote:
It makes me wonder if we need to support 32 bit generation on OSX at all.
Yeah, I wonder that too. But does it hurt/cause problems to do? I mean, it's
already supported.
There's the ongoing effort to suppor
On 12/14/2011 8:51 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 14-12-2011 14:11, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 December 2011 at 11:07:22 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
No point maintaining something that won't be used. I would also
imagine that it can't be long before Windows stops supporti
On 14-12-2011 14:11, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 December 2011 at 11:07:22 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
No point maintaining something that won't be used. I would also
imagine that it can't be long before Windows stops supporting 32-bit.
Windows still supports 16-bit apps (ev
On 2011-12-14 14:39, Michel Fortin wrote:
Also, I think it'd make sense that druntime and phobos continue to
support 32-bit OS X in case someone wants to target iOS one day, which
is basically 32-bit OS X on ARM.
Never thought of that, it's a good point.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On 2011-12-14 10:54:55 +, Walter Bright said:
On 12/14/2011 2:37 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
Yeah, it's the only reason this matters on Mac OS X. If it was a "regular"
application I probably never would have noticed.
I find I don't notice. (I think that's good!) Unless I'm debugging an
is
On Wednesday, 14 December 2011 at 11:07:22 UTC, Alex Rønne
Petersen wrote:
No point maintaining something that won't be used. I would also
imagine that it can't be long before Windows stops supporting
32-bit.
Windows still supports 16-bit apps (even 64-bit versions do, for
some rare exception
On 2011-12-14 11:54, Walter Bright wrote:
On 12/14/2011 2:37 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
Yeah, it's the only reason this matters on Mac OS X. If it was a
"regular"
application I probably never would have noticed.
I find I don't notice. (I think that's good!) Unless I'm debugging an
issue specifi
On 14-12-2011 11:54, Walter Bright wrote:
On 12/14/2011 2:37 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
Yeah, it's the only reason this matters on Mac OS X. If it was a
"regular"
application I probably never would have noticed.
I find I don't notice. (I think that's good!) Unless I'm debugging an
issue specifi
On 12/14/2011 2:37 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
Yeah, it's the only reason this matters on Mac OS X. If it was a "regular"
application I probably never would have noticed.
I find I don't notice. (I think that's good!) Unless I'm debugging an issue
specific to 32 or 64 bits.
It makes me wonder i
On 2011-12-14 11:13, Walter Bright wrote:
On 12/14/2011 2:03 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
Yeah, I see no point with the 32bit binaries either. But the 64bit
binaries
target 64bit by default, that's how I noticed it, my code wasn't
completely
64bit compatible.
The default is set to match gcc's def
On 12/14/2011 2:03 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
Yeah, I see no point with the 32bit binaries either. But the 64bit binaries
target 64bit by default, that's how I noticed it, my code wasn't completely
64bit compatible.
The default is set to match gcc's default.
On 2011-12-14 10:39, Walter Bright wrote:
On 12/14/2011 1:35 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
I just downloaded both 1.072 and 2.057. I see that 2.057 is compiled
as a 64bit
binary and 1.072 as a 32bit binary. Is there a reason for this
difference?
They should have both been 64 bit. Probably somethin
On 12/14/2011 1:35 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
I just downloaded both 1.072 and 2.057. I see that 2.057 is compiled as a 64bit
binary and 1.072 as a 32bit binary. Is there a reason for this difference?
They should have both been 64 bit. Probably something wrong with my build
script.
My intent i
I just downloaded both 1.072 and 2.057. I see that 2.057 is compiled as
a 64bit binary and 1.072 as a 32bit binary. Is there a reason for this
difference?
--
/Jacob Carlborg
22 matches
Mail list logo
