www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Does DMD build as a 32bit binary under linux?

reply BCS <none anon.com> writes:
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.)

-- 
... <IXOYE><
Sep 06 2010
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
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 consume 5 GB of memory.
Sep 06 2010
next sibling parent dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:
== Quote from Walter Bright (newshound2 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 64 binary from source.
 there's no need for a compiler to consume 5 GB of memory.

CTFE/fancy metaprogramming? Lately DMD seems to use ~500MB of memory to compile Phobos.
Sep 06 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
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 probably gets smaller). Bye, bearophile
Sep 06 2010
prev sibling parent reply BCS <none anon.com> writes:
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.)
 

would run any faster, and there's no need for a compiler to consume 5 GB of memory.

I've hit 1GB compileing a single file. It wouldn't be hard to hit 3GB. -- ... <IXOYE><
Sep 06 2010
parent Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:
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.)

would run any faster, and there's no need for a compiler to consume 5 GB of memory.

I've hit 1GB compileing a single file. It wouldn't be hard to hit 3GB.

Yes, but I'm almost certain that's just DMD's poor memory management, rather than an intrinsic memory-hungry problem. Array literals consume a *ridiculous* amount of memory, especially when you start modifying them in CTFE. The solution is to improve the memory management, rather than give the compiler another 200GB to waste <g>.
Sep 07 2010