www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - x86_64 support please!

reply Kiriakos Alexoglou <wiliams otenet.gr> writes:
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!!!
Mar 02 2007
next sibling parent reply Tomas Lindquist Olsen <tomas famolsen.dk> writes:
Kiriakos Alexoglou wrote:

 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++
Mar 02 2007
parent reply Don Clugston <dac nospam.com.au> writes:
Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:
 Kiriakos Alexoglou wrote:
 
 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.
Mar 02 2007
next sibling parent Pragma <ericanderton yahoo.removeme.com> writes:
Don Clugston wrote:
 Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:
 Kiriakos Alexoglou wrote:

 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
Mar 02 2007
prev sibling next sibling parent Johan Granberg <lijat.meREM OVE.gmail.com> writes:
Don Clugston wrote:

 Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:
 Kiriakos Alexoglou wrote:
 
 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.
Mar 02 2007
prev sibling parent reply Gregor Richards <Richards codu.org> writes:
Don Clugston wrote:
 Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:
 Kiriakos Alexoglou wrote:

 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
Mar 02 2007
parent Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Gregor Richards wrote:

 Don Clugston wrote:
 Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:
 Kiriakos Alexoglou wrote:

 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
Mar 02 2007
prev sibling next sibling parent Henning Hasemann <hhasemann web.de> writes:
 vote++

me too -- v4sw7Yhw4ln0pr7Ock2/3ma7uLw5Xm0l6/7DGKi2e6t6ELNSTVXb7AHIMOen5a2Xs5Mr2g5ACPR hackerkey.com
Mar 02 2007
prev sibling next sibling parent reply BLS <Killing_Zoe web.de> writes:
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


Kiriakos Alexoglou schrieb:
 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!!!
 
 

Mar 02 2007
parent reply Tomas Lindquist Olsen <tomas famolsen.dk> writes:
BLS wrote:

 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
 
 
 Kiriakos Alexoglou schrieb:
 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...
Mar 02 2007
parent reply BLS <Killing_Zoe web.de> writes:
Tomas Lindquist Olsen schrieb:
 BLS wrote:
 
 
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


Kiriakos Alexoglou schrieb:

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
Mar 02 2007
parent reply Jascha Wetzel <"[firstname]" mainia.de> writes:
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?

BLS wrote:
 Tomas Lindquist Olsen schrieb:
 BLS wrote:


 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


 Kiriakos Alexoglou schrieb:

 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

Mar 02 2007
parent reply BLS <Killing_Zoe web.de> writes:
Hi Jascha,

 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.
 compilers have intermediate code generation for decades....

However, we are leaving the 64 bit discussion. Bjoern Jascha Wetzel schrieb:
 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?
 
 BLS wrote:
 
Tomas Lindquist Olsen schrieb:

BLS wrote:



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


Kiriakos Alexoglou schrieb:


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


Mar 02 2007
parent reply Jascha Wetzel <"[firstname]" mainia.de> writes:
 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.
 compilers have intermediate code generation for decades....


- 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. BLS wrote:
 Hi Jascha,
 
 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.
 compilers have intermediate code generation for decades....

However, we are leaving the 64 bit discussion. Bjoern Jascha Wetzel schrieb:
 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?

 BLS wrote:

 Tomas Lindquist Olsen schrieb:

 BLS wrote:



 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


 Kiriakos Alexoglou schrieb:


 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



Mar 02 2007
parent Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
Jascha Wetzel wrote:
 compilers have intermediate code generation for decades....


- 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
Mar 02 2007
prev sibling parent Krzysztof =?UTF-8?B?U3p1a2llxYJvasSH?= <krzysztof.szukielojc gmail.com> writes:
vote++
The lack of x86_64 support got me mad when i tried to use derelict. :/
Mar 02 2007