Discussion:
x86_64 support please!
(too old to reply)
Kiriakos Alexoglou
2007-03-02 12:22:55 UTC
Permalink
Please Walter add support for x86_64!

I use Suse Linux 10.0 and developing in Qt and
I want to try make Qt bindings for dmd.

The bindings that exist for Qt right now,
can all work with x86_64 architectures.

In my personal opinion x86_64 support is
more important than adding additional feutures to dmd.

Right now I have to switch to the 32 bit version of Qt 4.2
and start making the bindings for it. I have no other choice.

There are so many additional registers waiting to get used
by all of us! :-)

Thank you for the exciting D language
you offered to all of us!
Keep up the good work!!!



*I think the D Logo with the Dolphin on it at
http://www.sukimashita.com/d/ is very nice!!!
Tomas Lindquist Olsen
2007-03-02 12:30:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kiriakos Alexoglou
Please Walter add support for x86_64!
I use Suse Linux 10.0 and developing in Qt and
I want to try make Qt bindings for dmd.
The bindings that exist for Qt right now,
can all work with x86_64 architectures.
In my personal opinion x86_64 support is
more important than adding additional feutures to dmd.
Right now I have to switch to the 32 bit version of Qt 4.2
and start making the bindings for it. I have no other choice.
There are so many additional registers waiting to get used
by all of us! :-)
Thank you for the exciting D language
you offered to all of us!
Keep up the good work!!!
*I think the D Logo with the Dolphin on it at
http://www.sukimashita.com/d/ is very nice!!!
AFAIK 64bit support is being fixed in GDC, I believe this is much more
likely to appear than DMD64.

That being said:
vote++
Henning Hasemann
2007-03-02 13:23:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tomas Lindquist Olsen
vote++
me too
--
v4sw7Yhw4ln0pr7Ock2/3ma7uLw5Xm0l6/7DGKi2e6t6ELNSTVXb7AHIMOen5a2Xs5Mr2g5ACPR hackerkey.com
Don Clugston
2007-03-02 13:59:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kiriakos Alexoglou
Please Walter add support for x86_64!
I use Suse Linux 10.0 and developing in Qt and
I want to try make Qt bindings for dmd.
The bindings that exist for Qt right now,
can all work with x86_64 architectures.
In my personal opinion x86_64 support is
more important than adding additional feutures to dmd.
vote--. That may be true, but do you have any idea how much work this
would involve?? (Hint: begin by implementing a linker from scratch).
We'd lose Walter for a year! Has to happen someday, but I don't think
Walter should put any thought into it until GDC-64 is firmly established.

OTOH, I hope we get a working GDC-x64 very soon.
Pragma
2007-03-02 15:40:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Clugston
Post by Kiriakos Alexoglou
Please Walter add support for x86_64!
I use Suse Linux 10.0 and developing in Qt and
I want to try make Qt bindings for dmd.
The bindings that exist for Qt right now,
can all work with x86_64 architectures.
In my personal opinion x86_64 support is
more important than adding additional feutures to dmd.
vote--. That may be true, but do you have any idea how much work this
would involve?? (Hint: begin by implementing a linker from scratch).
We'd lose Walter for a year! Has to happen someday, but I don't think
Walter should put any thought into it until GDC-64 is firmly established.
OTOH, I hope we get a working GDC-x64 very soon.
I agree with Don on this one. This is the kind of project that requires a lot of dedicated man-hours to do right. In
other words, it's going to need some serious (fiscal) backing before it'll materialize on anything but a *geologic*
timescale.

Disclaimer: I haven't written anything as involved as a complete compiler toolchain, nor am I a PM. But I'd imagine
that this is the kind of task that doesn't segment easily for sub-teams to handle (aside from the obvious
compiler/linker split). There's just too much vertical integration between parts to have each component developed in
relative isolation from another: parser, parse-tree, semantic analyzer, code generator, .obj generator, optimizer,
linker, etc. So I'm left with the impression that the ideal team size for this may only be a handful of people at best,
lest they begin to interfere with one another, which further compounds the time-to-delivery issue.
--
- EricAnderton at yahoo
Johan Granberg
2007-03-02 15:43:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Clugston
Post by Kiriakos Alexoglou
Please Walter add support for x86_64!
I use Suse Linux 10.0 and developing in Qt and
I want to try make Qt bindings for dmd.
The bindings that exist for Qt right now,
can all work with x86_64 architectures.
In my personal opinion x86_64 support is
more important than adding additional feutures to dmd.
vote--. That may be true, but do you have any idea how much work this
would involve?? (Hint: begin by implementing a linker from scratch).
We'd lose Walter for a year! Has to happen someday, but I don't think
Walter should put any thought into it until GDC-64 is firmly established.
OTOH, I hope we get a working GDC-x64 very soon.
I agree. The important thing is not to get dmd64 but to get a D 64bit
compiler, that we get some D 64bit compiler is rather urgent thou.
Gregor Richards
2007-03-02 16:51:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Clugston
Post by Kiriakos Alexoglou
Please Walter add support for x86_64!
I use Suse Linux 10.0 and developing in Qt and
I want to try make Qt bindings for dmd.
The bindings that exist for Qt right now,
can all work with x86_64 architectures.
In my personal opinion x86_64 support is
more important than adding additional feutures to dmd.
vote--. That may be true, but do you have any idea how much work this
would involve?? (Hint: begin by implementing a linker from scratch).
We'd lose Walter for a year! Has to happen someday, but I don't think
Walter should put any thought into it until GDC-64 is firmly established.
OTOH, I hope we get a working GDC-x64 very soon.
vote-- as well.

For the record, you're at 0 votes now :P

- Gregor Richards
Lars Ivar Igesund
2007-03-02 17:12:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregor Richards
Post by Don Clugston
Post by Kiriakos Alexoglou
Please Walter add support for x86_64!
I use Suse Linux 10.0 and developing in Qt and
I want to try make Qt bindings for dmd.
The bindings that exist for Qt right now,
can all work with x86_64 architectures.
In my personal opinion x86_64 support is
more important than adding additional feutures to dmd.
vote--. That may be true, but do you have any idea how much work this
would involve?? (Hint: begin by implementing a linker from scratch).
We'd lose Walter for a year! Has to happen someday, but I don't think
Walter should put any thought into it until GDC-64 is firmly established.
OTOH, I hope we get a working GDC-x64 very soon.
vote-- as well.
For the record, you're at 0 votes now :P
- Gregor Richards
I would agree with this too, but I believe Walter has stated in the past
that he needs to make DMC 64-bit compatible anyway.
--
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango
BLS
2007-03-02 13:44:07 UTC
Permalink
Seems to be a good chance to start re-implementing the complete D
Tool-Chain Development in D.
(Instead of using C and ASM)
IMO D 2.0 should be implemented in D (seperated from 1.x) , even if the
2.0 Backend is closed source.
Bjoern
Post by Kiriakos Alexoglou
Please Walter add support for x86_64!
I use Suse Linux 10.0 and developing in Qt and
I want to try make Qt bindings for dmd.
The bindings that exist for Qt right now,
can all work with x86_64 architectures.
In my personal opinion x86_64 support is
more important than adding additional feutures to dmd.
Right now I have to switch to the 32 bit version of Qt 4.2
and start making the bindings for it. I have no other choice.
There are so many additional registers waiting to get used
by all of us! :-)
Thank you for the exciting D language
you offered to all of us!
Keep up the good work!!!
*I think the D Logo with the Dolphin on it at
http://www.sukimashita.com/d/ is very nice!!!
Tomas Lindquist Olsen
2007-03-02 13:51:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by BLS
Seems to be a good chance to start re-implementing the complete D
Tool-Chain Development in D.
(Instead of using C and ASM)
IMO D 2.0 should be implemented in D (seperated from 1.x) , even if the
2.0 Backend is closed source.
Bjoern
Post by Kiriakos Alexoglou
Please Walter add support for x86_64!
I use Suse Linux 10.0 and developing in Qt and
I want to try make Qt bindings for dmd.
The bindings that exist for Qt right now,
can all work with x86_64 architectures.
In my personal opinion x86_64 support is
more important than adding additional feutures to dmd.
Right now I have to switch to the 32 bit version of Qt 4.2
and start making the bindings for it. I have no other choice.
There are so many additional registers waiting to get used
by all of us! :-)
Thank you for the exciting D language
you offered to all of us!
Keep up the good work!!!
*I think the D Logo with the Dolphin on it at
http://www.sukimashita.com/d/ is very nice!!!
By using the LLVM backend D could be implemented in D.
LLVM is C++ but you can output a ASM-like text file instead. I'm not sure
how much this would hurt performance, but I'm guessing it's not that much.
Also compared to what is gained it's a small price to pay.

LLVM has a bytecode VM, JIT and some pretty neat optimisation technology.

I think it could be interesting...
BLS
2007-03-02 17:04:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tomas Lindquist Olsen
Post by BLS
Seems to be a good chance to start re-implementing the complete D
Tool-Chain Development in D.
(Instead of using C and ASM)
IMO D 2.0 should be implemented in D (seperated from 1.x) , even if the
2.0 Backend is closed source.
Bjoern
Post by Kiriakos Alexoglou
Please Walter add support for x86_64!
I use Suse Linux 10.0 and developing in Qt and
I want to try make Qt bindings for dmd.
The bindings that exist for Qt right now,
can all work with x86_64 architectures.
In my personal opinion x86_64 support is
more important than adding additional feutures to dmd.
Right now I have to switch to the 32 bit version of Qt 4.2
and start making the bindings for it. I have no other choice.
There are so many additional registers waiting to get used
by all of us! :-)
Thank you for the exciting D language
you offered to all of us!
Keep up the good work!!!
*I think the D Logo with the Dolphin on it at
http://www.sukimashita.com/d/ is very nice!!!
By using the LLVM backend D could be implemented in D.
LLVM is C++ but you can output a ASM-like text file instead. I'm not sure
how much this would hurt performance, but I'm guessing it's not that much.
Also compared to what is gained it's a small price to pay.
LLVM has a bytecode VM, JIT and some pretty neat optimisation technology.
I think it could be interesting...
NO !
NO VM,NET or D to WhatTheHeck cross compilation

I simply vote for a D implemented in D. Frontend, Backend, Linker ....
the complete Toolchain..... 32/64 bit at your choice.
The impact of having D in D for Tools like IDEs is significant.
And :
I would prefer to have all *D Tools implemented as DDL* guess why ?
Bjoern
Jascha Wetzel
2007-03-02 17:17:41 UTC
Permalink
what's so bad about cross compilation?
compilers have intermediate code generation for decades, therefore
having different code generation and -optimization backends is a good
thing. am i wrong?
Post by BLS
Post by Tomas Lindquist Olsen
Post by BLS
Seems to be a good chance to start re-implementing the complete D
Tool-Chain Development in D.
(Instead of using C and ASM)
IMO D 2.0 should be implemented in D (seperated from 1.x) , even if the
2.0 Backend is closed source.
Bjoern
Post by Kiriakos Alexoglou
Please Walter add support for x86_64!
I use Suse Linux 10.0 and developing in Qt and
I want to try make Qt bindings for dmd.
The bindings that exist for Qt right now,
can all work with x86_64 architectures.
In my personal opinion x86_64 support is
more important than adding additional feutures to dmd.
Right now I have to switch to the 32 bit version of Qt 4.2
and start making the bindings for it. I have no other choice.
There are so many additional registers waiting to get used
by all of us! :-)
Thank you for the exciting D language
you offered to all of us!
Keep up the good work!!!
*I think the D Logo with the Dolphin on it at
http://www.sukimashita.com/d/ is very nice!!!
By using the LLVM backend D could be implemented in D.
LLVM is C++ but you can output a ASM-like text file instead. I'm not sure
how much this would hurt performance, but I'm guessing it's not that much.
Also compared to what is gained it's a small price to pay.
LLVM has a bytecode VM, JIT and some pretty neat optimisation technology.
I think it could be interesting...
NO !
NO VM,NET or D to WhatTheHeck cross compilation
I simply vote for a D implemented in D. Frontend, Backend, Linker ....
the complete Toolchain..... 32/64 bit at your choice.
The impact of having D in D for Tools like IDEs is significant.
I would prefer to have all *D Tools implemented as DDL* guess why ?
Bjoern
BLS
2007-03-02 18:48:21 UTC
Permalink
Hi Jascha,
Post by Jascha Wetzel
what's so bad about cross compilation?
In case that you are talking about GCC,
1)fat bottom binaries
2)a never ending compile link cycle.
Post by Jascha Wetzel
compilers have intermediate code generation for decades....
Yep. And this is good for what ?

However, we are leaving the 64 bit discussion.
Bjoern
Post by Jascha Wetzel
what's so bad about cross compilation?
compilers have intermediate code generation for decades, therefore
having different code generation and -optimization backends is a good
thing. am i wrong?
Post by BLS
Post by Tomas Lindquist Olsen
Post by BLS
Seems to be a good chance to start re-implementing the complete D
Tool-Chain Development in D.
(Instead of using C and ASM)
IMO D 2.0 should be implemented in D (seperated from 1.x) , even if the
2.0 Backend is closed source.
Bjoern
Post by Kiriakos Alexoglou
Please Walter add support for x86_64!
I use Suse Linux 10.0 and developing in Qt and
I want to try make Qt bindings for dmd.
The bindings that exist for Qt right now,
can all work with x86_64 architectures.
In my personal opinion x86_64 support is
more important than adding additional feutures to dmd.
Right now I have to switch to the 32 bit version of Qt 4.2
and start making the bindings for it. I have no other choice.
There are so many additional registers waiting to get used
by all of us! :-)
Thank you for the exciting D language
you offered to all of us!
Keep up the good work!!!
*I think the D Logo with the Dolphin on it at
http://www.sukimashita.com/d/ is very nice!!!
By using the LLVM backend D could be implemented in D.
LLVM is C++ but you can output a ASM-like text file instead. I'm not sure
how much this would hurt performance, but I'm guessing it's not that much.
Also compared to what is gained it's a small price to pay.
LLVM has a bytecode VM, JIT and some pretty neat optimisation technology.
I think it could be interesting...
NO !
NO VM,NET or D to WhatTheHeck cross compilation
I simply vote for a D implemented in D. Frontend, Backend, Linker ....
the complete Toolchain..... 32/64 bit at your choice.
The impact of having D in D for Tools like IDEs is significant.
I would prefer to have all *D Tools implemented as DDL* guess why ?
Bjoern
Jascha Wetzel
2007-03-02 20:40:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by BLS
In case that you are talking about GCC,
1)fat bottom binaries
2)a never ending compile link cycle.
i wasn't specifically talking about any compiler.
it's probably true that GCC has the properties you describe, but i don't
understand why they are caused by intermediate code generation or cross
compilation.
Post by BLS
Post by Jascha Wetzel
compilers have intermediate code generation for decades....
Yep. And this is good for what ?
- easier/faster optimization
- machine independent optimization
- portability. not just different platforms, but also different feature
sets and versions

maybe that's just theory. i never implemented an optimizing compiler
myself. but that's what the dragonbook and friends say. i'm very
interested in more practical knowledge about these things. right now i
just can't see why ICG should cause any trouble.
Post by BLS
Hi Jascha,
Post by Jascha Wetzel
what's so bad about cross compilation?
In case that you are talking about GCC,
1)fat bottom binaries
2)a never ending compile link cycle.
Post by Jascha Wetzel
compilers have intermediate code generation for decades....
Yep. And this is good for what ?
However, we are leaving the 64 bit discussion.
Bjoern
Post by Jascha Wetzel
what's so bad about cross compilation?
compilers have intermediate code generation for decades, therefore
having different code generation and -optimization backends is a good
thing. am i wrong?
Post by BLS
Post by Tomas Lindquist Olsen
Post by BLS
Seems to be a good chance to start re-implementing the complete D
Tool-Chain Development in D.
(Instead of using C and ASM)
IMO D 2.0 should be implemented in D (seperated from 1.x) , even if the
2.0 Backend is closed source.
Bjoern
Post by Kiriakos Alexoglou
Please Walter add support for x86_64!
I use Suse Linux 10.0 and developing in Qt and
I want to try make Qt bindings for dmd.
The bindings that exist for Qt right now,
can all work with x86_64 architectures.
In my personal opinion x86_64 support is
more important than adding additional feutures to dmd.
Right now I have to switch to the 32 bit version of Qt 4.2
and start making the bindings for it. I have no other choice.
There are so many additional registers waiting to get used
by all of us! :-)
Thank you for the exciting D language
you offered to all of us!
Keep up the good work!!!
*I think the D Logo with the Dolphin on it at
http://www.sukimashita.com/d/ is very nice!!!
By using the LLVM backend D could be implemented in D.
LLVM is C++ but you can output a ASM-like text file instead. I'm not sure
how much this would hurt performance, but I'm guessing it's not that much.
Also compared to what is gained it's a small price to pay.
LLVM has a bytecode VM, JIT and some pretty neat optimisation technology.
I think it could be interesting...
NO !
NO VM,NET or D to WhatTheHeck cross compilation
I simply vote for a D implemented in D. Frontend, Backend, Linker ....
the complete Toolchain..... 32/64 bit at your choice.
The impact of having D in D for Tools like IDEs is significant.
I would prefer to have all *D Tools implemented as DDL* guess why ?
Bjoern
Sean Kelly
2007-03-02 21:48:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jascha Wetzel
Post by BLS
Post by Jascha Wetzel
compilers have intermediate code generation for decades....
Yep. And this is good for what ?
- easier/faster optimization
- machine independent optimization
- portability. not just different platforms, but also different feature
sets and versions
maybe that's just theory. i never implemented an optimizing compiler
myself. but that's what the dragonbook and friends say. i'm very
interested in more practical knowledge about these things. right now i
just can't see why ICG should cause any trouble.
Me either. I'd think it would be far preferable to the alternatives.


Sean

Krzysztof Szukiełojć
2007-03-02 21:00:39 UTC
Permalink
vote++
The lack of x86_64 support got me mad when i tried to use derelict. :/
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...