Re: OSX and 64-bit [Re: First working Win64 program!]

2012-08-14 Thread Paulo Pinto
On Monday, 13 August 2012 at 22:07:51 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote: On 13-08-2012 23:58, Andrej Mitrovic wrote: On 8/13/12, Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote: I've thought many times about adding a D feature that allows one to specify use this random character string instead of

Re: OSX and 64-bit [Re: First working Win64 program!]

2012-08-14 Thread Alex Rønne Petersen
On 14-08-2012 09:25, Paulo Pinto wrote: On Monday, 13 August 2012 at 22:07:51 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote: On 13-08-2012 23:58, Andrej Mitrovic wrote: On 8/13/12, Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote: I've thought many times about adding a D feature that allows one to specify use

Re: OSX and 64-bit [Re: First working Win64 program!]

2012-08-14 Thread Daniel Murphy
Alex Rønne Petersen a...@lycus.org wrote in message news:k0bs29$1bpl$1...@digitalmars.com... On 13-08-2012 23:34, Walter Bright wrote: On 8/13/2012 12:41 PM, Sean Kelly wrote: I've thought many times about adding a D feature that allows one to specify use this random character string instead

Re: OSX and 64-bit [Re: First working Win64 program!]

2012-08-14 Thread Alex Rønne Petersen
On 13-08-2012 23:43, Walter Bright wrote: On 8/13/2012 2:37 PM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote: I've wanted a feature like that on several occasions (mostly when interfacing with non-C/C++ languages). How hard it would it be to implement? Theoretically, it sounds simple enough. You could do it

Re: OSX and 64-bit [Re: First working Win64 program!]

2012-08-14 Thread Alex Rønne Petersen
On 14-08-2012 14:00, Daniel Murphy wrote: Alex Rønne Petersen a...@lycus.org wrote in message news:k0bs29$1bpl$1...@digitalmars.com... On 13-08-2012 23:34, Walter Bright wrote: On 8/13/2012 12:41 PM, Sean Kelly wrote: I've thought many times about adding a D feature that allows one to specify

Re: OSX and 64-bit [Re: First working Win64 program!]

2012-08-13 Thread Russel Winder
On Sun, 2012-08-12 at 23:29 -0700, Jonathan M Davis wrote: […] OSX has a lot less backwards compatibility to worry about. Not entirely true. semi-rant Apple's strategy appears to be that computers are non-upgradable, non-repairable, disposable items that last until the next release: everyone is

Re: OSX and 64-bit [Re: First working Win64 program!]

2012-08-13 Thread Paulo Pinto
On Monday, 13 August 2012 at 07:05:11 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: On Sun, 2012-08-12 at 23:29 -0700, Jonathan M Davis wrote: […] OSX has a lot less backwards compatibility to worry about. Not entirely true. semi-rant Apple's strategy appears to be that computers are non-upgradable,

Re: OSX and 64-bit [Re: First working Win64 program!]

2012-08-13 Thread Jacob Carlborg
On 2012-08-13 09:04, Russel Winder wrote: semi-rant Apple's strategy appears to be that computers are non-upgradable, non-repairable, disposable items that last until the next release: everyone is supposed buy the latest version as soon as it comes out and so be on the latest kit(*). But

Re: OSX and 64-bit [Re: First working Win64 program!]

2012-08-13 Thread Sean Kelly
On Aug 13, 2012, at 12:04 AM, Russel Winder rus...@winder.org.uk wrote: On Sun, 2012-08-12 at 23:29 -0700, Jonathan M Davis wrote: […] OSX has a lot less backwards compatibility to worry about. Not entirely true. semi-rant Apple's strategy appears to be that computers are

Re: OSX and 64-bit [Re: First working Win64 program!]

2012-08-13 Thread Walter Bright
On 8/13/2012 12:41 PM, Sean Kelly wrote: Strangely,libc on OSX is very backwards-compatible. To the point where buggy functions were preserved as-is and updated versions exported via weird labels linked by the compiler using some evil macro code. Needless to say, D unfortunalely links to the

Re: OSX and 64-bit [Re: First working Win64 program!]

2012-08-13 Thread Alex Rønne Petersen
On 13-08-2012 23:34, Walter Bright wrote: On 8/13/2012 12:41 PM, Sean Kelly wrote: Strangely,libc on OSX is very backwards-compatible. To the point where buggy functions were preserved as-is and updated versions exported via weird labels linked by the compiler using some evil macro code.

Re: OSX and 64-bit [Re: First working Win64 program!]

2012-08-13 Thread Walter Bright
On 8/13/2012 2:37 PM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote: I've wanted a feature like that on several occasions (mostly when interfacing with non-C/C++ languages). How hard it would it be to implement? Theoretically, it sounds simple enough. You could do it with a pragma or something. It's always going

Re: OSX and 64-bit [Re: First working Win64 program!]

2012-08-13 Thread Andrej Mitrovic
On 8/13/12, Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote: I've thought many times about adding a D feature that allows one to specify use this random character string instead of the identifier as the symbol name when writing the object file, but never got around to it. Isn't that what .def

Re: OSX and 64-bit [Re: First working Win64 program!]

2012-08-13 Thread Michael
No doubt that COFF 64 bits it are good and with high priority, though small, but support of COFF 32 bits will be a gift that will add popularity to dmd. Anyway I have words that add + to 64 bit and to 32 bit tools that supports linking with ms toolset.

Re: OSX and 64-bit [Re: First working Win64 program!]

2012-08-13 Thread Alex Rønne Petersen
On 13-08-2012 23:58, Andrej Mitrovic wrote: On 8/13/12, Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote: I've thought many times about adding a D feature that allows one to specify use this random character string instead of the identifier as the symbol name when writing the object file, but

Re: OSX and 64-bit [Re: First working Win64 program!]

2012-08-13 Thread Andrej Mitrovic
On 8/14/12, Alex Rønne Petersen a...@lycus.org wrote: That's a Windows-ism. I think it's technically a linker-ism. Surely LD supports a similar feature?

Re: OSX and 64-bit [Re: First working Win64 program!]

2012-08-13 Thread Nick Sabalausky
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 11:25:29 +0200 Paulo Pinto pj...@progtools.org wrote: On Monday, 13 August 2012 at 07:05:11 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: Apple's strategy appears to be that computers are non-upgradable, non-repairable, disposable items that last until the next release: It is this