I assuem that a 64bit DMD building 64bit binaries is one of the objective
right now. How about a 64bit->32bit? (Or for that matter, 32bit->64bit.)
--
... <
BCS wrote:
I assuem that a 64bit DMD building 64bit binaries is one of the
objective right now. How about a 64bit->32bit? (Or for that matter,
32bit->64bit.)
There's not much reason to provide a 64 bit binary of dmd. I doubt it would run
any faster, and there's no need for a compiler to consu
== Quote from Walter Bright (newshou...@digitalmars.com)'s article
> There's not much reason to provide a 64 bit binary of dmd.
How about using a computer that you don't have admin access to that doesn't
offer
good support for 32-bit binaries? Then again, for these cases you could just
compile a
Walter Bright:
>I doubt it would run any faster,<
I can't know.
>and there's no need for a compiler to consume 5 GB of memory.
I don't know. But currently it's not hard for me to reach about 1 GB of used
RAM with template/CTFE-heavy code (once a certain CTFE bug is fixed, the needed
memory p
Hello Walter,
BCS wrote:
I assuem that a 64bit DMD building 64bit binaries is one of the
objective right now. How about a 64bit->32bit? (Or for that matter,
32bit->64bit.)
There's not much reason to provide a 64 bit binary of dmd. I doubt it
would run any faster, and there's no need for a co
BCS wrote:
Hello Walter,
BCS wrote:
I assuem that a 64bit DMD building 64bit binaries is one of the
objective right now. How about a 64bit->32bit? (Or for that matter,
32bit->64bit.)
There's not much reason to provide a 64 bit binary of dmd. I doubt it
would run any faster, and there's no n
