digitalmars.D - DMD 1.072 and DMD 2.057 64bit on Mac OS X
- Jacob Carlborg (5/5) Dec 14 2011 I just downloaded both 1.072 and 2.057. I see that 2.057 is compiled as
- Walter Bright (5/7) Dec 14 2011 They should have both been 64 bit. Probably something wrong with my buil...
- Jacob Carlborg (6/16) Dec 14 2011 Yeah, I see no point with the 32bit binaries either. But the 64bit
- Walter Bright (2/5) Dec 14 2011 The default is set to match gcc's default.
- Jacob Carlborg (5/12) Dec 14 2011 Yeah, it's the only reason this matters on Mac OS X. If it was a
- Walter Bright (4/6) Dec 14 2011 I find I don't notice. (I think that's good!) Unless I'm debugging an is...
- =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Alex_R=F8nne_Petersen?= (4/11) Dec 14 2011 No point maintaining something that won't be used. I would also imagine
- Vladimir Panteleev (4/7) Dec 14 2011 Windows still supports 16-bit apps (even 64-bit versions do, for
- =?UTF-8?B?QWxleCBSw7hubmUgUGV0ZXJzZW4=?= (4/9) Dec 14 2011 Hehe, fun fact. Though I doubt Microsoft actually cares enough to
- Walter Bright (5/14) Dec 14 2011 I rely on that to test the 16 bit support of Digital Mars C/C++. It's th...
- Kai Meyer (10/21) Dec 14 2011 I work for a company who has large enough contracts in Brazil who still
- Somedude (3/8) Dec 15 2011 You imagine wrong. A large percentage of Windows users are still on Win
- =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Alex_R=F8nne_Petersen?= (10/18) Dec 15 2011 Amount of users has nothing to do with whether Microsoft will continue
- Nick Sabalausky (3/4) Dec 16 2011 https://www.semitwist.com/articles/article/view/why-use-a-10-year-old-os...
- Jacob Carlborg (5/12) Dec 14 2011 Yeah, I wonder that too. But does it hurt/cause problems to do? I mean,
- Walter Bright (2/6) Dec 14 2011 There's the ongoing effort to support dynlibs.
- Jacob Carlborg (4/12) Dec 14 2011 But as Michel mentioned, iPhone is 32bit and I think that is a good poin...
- Michel Fortin (8/20) Dec 15 2011 And I believe DMD can already create executables that would work on the
- Michel Fortin (11/18) Dec 15 2011 It's one thing to ask developers to use 64-bit machines for
- Walter Bright (3/8) Dec 15 2011 I didn't know that.
- Michel Fortin (14/22) Dec 14 2011 If I were to develop a Mac application in D at this time, not being
- Jacob Carlborg (4/7) Dec 14 2011 Never thought of that, it's a good point.
I just downloaded both 1.072 and 2.057. I see that 2.057 is compiled as a 64bit binary and 1.072 as a 32bit binary. Is there a reason for this difference? -- /Jacob Carlborg
Dec 14 2011
On 12/14/2011 1:35 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:I just downloaded both 1.072 and 2.057. I see that 2.057 is compiled as a 64bit binary and 1.072 as a 32bit binary. Is there a reason for this difference?They should have both been 64 bit. Probably something wrong with my build script. My intent is to go all 64 bit for the OS X binaries. Apple stopped shipping 32 bit only Macs several years ago. While I intend to still build and test the 32 bit binaries, I see no point in shipping them.
Dec 14 2011
On 2011-12-14 10:39, Walter Bright wrote:On 12/14/2011 1:35 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:Yeah, I see no point with the 32bit binaries either. But the 64bit binaries target 64bit by default, that's how I noticed it, my code wasn't completely 64bit compatible. -- /Jacob CarlborgI just downloaded both 1.072 and 2.057. I see that 2.057 is compiled as a 64bit binary and 1.072 as a 32bit binary. Is there a reason for this difference?They should have both been 64 bit. Probably something wrong with my build script. My intent is to go all 64 bit for the OS X binaries. Apple stopped shipping 32 bit only Macs several years ago. While I intend to still build and test the 32 bit binaries, I see no point in shipping them.
Dec 14 2011
On 12/14/2011 2:03 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:Yeah, I see no point with the 32bit binaries either. But the 64bit binaries target 64bit by default, that's how I noticed it, my code wasn't completely 64bit compatible.The default is set to match gcc's default.
Dec 14 2011
On 2011-12-14 11:13, Walter Bright wrote:On 12/14/2011 2:03 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:Yeah, it's the only reason this matters on Mac OS X. If it was a "regular" application I probably never would have noticed. -- /Jacob CarlborgYeah, I see no point with the 32bit binaries either. But the 64bit binaries target 64bit by default, that's how I noticed it, my code wasn't completely 64bit compatible.The default is set to match gcc's default.
Dec 14 2011
On 12/14/2011 2:37 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:Yeah, it's the only reason this matters on Mac OS X. If it was a "regular" application I probably never would have noticed.I find I don't notice. (I think that's good!) Unless I'm debugging an issue specific to 32 or 64 bits. It makes me wonder if we need to support 32 bit generation on OSX at all.
Dec 14 2011
On 14-12-2011 11:54, Walter Bright wrote:On 12/14/2011 2:37 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:No point maintaining something that won't be used. I would also imagine that it can't be long before Windows stops supporting 32-bit. - AlexYeah, it's the only reason this matters on Mac OS X. If it was a "regular" application I probably never would have noticed.I find I don't notice. (I think that's good!) Unless I'm debugging an issue specific to 32 or 64 bits. It makes me wonder if we need to support 32 bit generation on OSX at all.
Dec 14 2011
On Wednesday, 14 December 2011 at 11:07:22 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:No point maintaining something that won't be used. I would also imagine that it can't be long before Windows stops supporting 32-bit.Windows still supports 16-bit apps (even 64-bit versions do, for some rare exceptions)!
Dec 14 2011
On 14-12-2011 14:11, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:On Wednesday, 14 December 2011 at 11:07:22 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:Hehe, fun fact. Though I doubt Microsoft actually cares enough to maintain that support these days... - AlexNo point maintaining something that won't be used. I would also imagine that it can't be long before Windows stops supporting 32-bit.Windows still supports 16-bit apps (even 64-bit versions do, for some rare exceptions)!
Dec 14 2011
On 12/14/2011 8:51 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:On 14-12-2011 14:11, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:I rely on that to test the 16 bit support of Digital Mars C/C++. It's the only modern compiler that supports the 16 bit x86 world, and there are a few customers that like it. I.e. you don't have to get a compiler from some "museum".On Wednesday, 14 December 2011 at 11:07:22 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:Hehe, fun fact. Though I doubt Microsoft actually cares enough to maintain that support these days...No point maintaining something that won't be used. I would also imagine that it can't be long before Windows stops supporting 32-bit.Windows still supports 16-bit apps (even 64-bit versions do, for some rare exceptions)!
Dec 14 2011
On 12/14/2011 09:51 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:On 14-12-2011 14:11, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:I work for a company who has large enough contracts in Brazil who still run Windows NT to justify the continued use of Visual Studio 2005 to build software for NT and XP (though most of our Windows developers develop in VS2010 and then make sure it still works in VS2005). Apple has the opportunity to depreciate entire architectures because they aren't as ubiquitous as Microsoft products. They don't have billion dollar contracts that request they spend an extra 200 million a year to support their old stuff. At least that's the only justification I can think of to stay on older software.On Wednesday, 14 December 2011 at 11:07:22 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:Hehe, fun fact. Though I doubt Microsoft actually cares enough to maintain that support these days... - AlexNo point maintaining something that won't be used. I would also imagine that it can't be long before Windows stops supporting 32-bit.Windows still supports 16-bit apps (even 64-bit versions do, for some rare exceptions)!
Dec 14 2011
Le 14/12/2011 11:07, Alex Rønne Petersen a écrit :No point maintaining something that won't be used. I would also imagine that it can't be long before Windows stops supporting 32-bit. - AlexYou imagine wrong. A large percentage of Windows users are still on Win XP 32 bits (like me).
Dec 15 2011
On 15-12-2011 18:04, Somedude wrote:Le 14/12/2011 11:07, Alex Rønne Petersen a écrit :Amount of users has nothing to do with whether Microsoft will continue to support it. Microsoft has well-defined lifecycles for support on their products. I'm not sure what you being on a 32-bit OS from 2001 has to do with my imagination of the future in 2011. :) There are many reasons a company like Microsoft would want to let 32-bit x86 die; only having to maintain one platform being one of such. It is undeniable that the trend is going towards 64-bit (and this is a Good Thing, obviously). - AlexNo point maintaining something that won't be used. I would also imagine that it can't be long before Windows stops supporting 32-bit. - AlexYou imagine wrong. A large percentage of Windows users are still on Win XP 32 bits (like me).
Dec 15 2011
"Alex Rønne Petersen" <xtzgzorex gmail.com> wrote in message news:jcdep3$2gs3$1 digitalmars.com...being on a 32-bit OS from 2001https://www.semitwist.com/articles/article/view/why-use-a-10-year-old-os-!
Dec 16 2011
On 2011-12-14 11:54, Walter Bright wrote:On 12/14/2011 2:37 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:Yeah, I wonder that too. But does it hurt/cause problems to do? I mean, it's already supported. -- /Jacob CarlborgYeah, it's the only reason this matters on Mac OS X. If it was a "regular" application I probably never would have noticed.I find I don't notice. (I think that's good!) Unless I'm debugging an issue specific to 32 or 64 bits. It makes me wonder if we need to support 32 bit generation on OSX at all.
Dec 14 2011
On 12/14/2011 3:09 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:On 2011-12-14 11:54, Walter Bright wrote:There's the ongoing effort to support dynlibs.It makes me wonder if we need to support 32 bit generation on OSX at all.Yeah, I wonder that too. But does it hurt/cause problems to do? I mean, it's already supported.
Dec 14 2011
On 2011-12-14 19:28, Walter Bright wrote:On 12/14/2011 3:09 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:But as Michel mentioned, iPhone is 32bit and I think that is a good point. -- /Jacob CarlborgOn 2011-12-14 11:54, Walter Bright wrote:There's the ongoing effort to support dynlibs.It makes me wonder if we need to support 32 bit generation on OSX at all.Yeah, I wonder that too. But does it hurt/cause problems to do? I mean, it's already supported.
Dec 14 2011
On 2011-12-15 07:22:47 +0000, Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> said:On 2011-12-14 19:28, Walter Bright wrote:And I believe DMD can already create executables that would work on the iPhone simulator, since those are simply 32-bit Mac OS X executables linked to a different set of frameworks. -- Michel Fortin michel.fortin michelf.com http://michelf.com/On 12/14/2011 3:09 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:But as Michel mentioned, iPhone is 32bit and I think that is a good point.On 2011-12-14 11:54, Walter Bright wrote:There's the ongoing effort to support dynlibs.It makes me wonder if we need to support 32 bit generation on OSX at all.Yeah, I wonder that too. But does it hurt/cause problems to do? I mean, it's already supported.
Dec 15 2011
On 2011-12-14 18:28:07 +0000, Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> said:On 12/14/2011 3:09 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:It's one thing to ask developers to use 64-bit machines for development, it's another to say to developers they can't target 32-bit users if they choose to use DMD. Even Apple ships everything with dual architecture binaries these days, and some of Apple's apps also keep PowerPC support, iTunes for instance. And also iOS is 32-bit. -- Michel Fortin michel.fortin michelf.com http://michelf.com/On 2011-12-14 11:54, Walter Bright wrote:There's the ongoing effort to support dynlibs.It makes me wonder if we need to support 32 bit generation on OSX at all.Yeah, I wonder that too. But does it hurt/cause problems to do? I mean, it's already supported.
Dec 15 2011
On 12/15/2011 4:40 AM, Michel Fortin wrote:It's one thing to ask developers to use 64-bit machines for development, it's another to say to developers they can't target 32-bit users if they choose to use DMD. Even Apple ships everything with dual architecture binaries these days, and some of Apple's apps also keep PowerPC support, iTunes for instance.I think it's fair to continue with 32 bit dev support for now.And also iOS is 32-bit.I didn't know that.
Dec 15 2011
On 2011-12-14 10:54:55 +0000, Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> said:On 12/14/2011 2:37 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:If I were to develop a Mac application in D at this time, not being able to target older 32-bit macs would make me reconsider using D. The app I'm working on still has PowerPC support! Perhaps I'm not the typical Mac developer though. But as long as Apple supports compiling for 32-bit with the provided developer tools I'd keep it in DMD too, if only because it'd make D look cheep otherwise. Also, I think it'd make sense that druntime and phobos continue to support 32-bit OS X in case someone wants to target iOS one day, which is basically 32-bit OS X on ARM. -- Michel Fortin michel.fortin michelf.com http://michelf.com/Yeah, it's the only reason this matters on Mac OS X. If it was a "regular" application I probably never would have noticed.I find I don't notice. (I think that's good!) Unless I'm debugging an issue specific to 32 or 64 bits. It makes me wonder if we need to support 32 bit generation on OSX at all.
Dec 14 2011
On 2011-12-14 14:39, Michel Fortin wrote:Also, I think it'd make sense that druntime and phobos continue to support 32-bit OS X in case someone wants to target iOS one day, which is basically 32-bit OS X on ARM.Never thought of that, it's a good point. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Dec 14 2011