www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - dmd2-2.052 is only for i386, while you are running amd64 (or dmd2

reply Gour-Gadadhara Dasa <gour atmarama.net> writes:
Hello,

I'm running Free/PC-BSD desktop now, and here is dmd-2 experience:



=3D=3D=3D>  dmd2-2.052 is only for i386, while you are running amd64.
*** Error code 1

Stop in /usr/ports/lang/dmd2.


Can we expect that something will change in regard to 64bit support on
FreeBSD soon or it's safer to look for alternatives (gdc, ldc)?


Sincerely,
Gour

--=20
=E2=80=9CIn the material world, conceptions of good and bad are
all mental speculations=E2=80=A6=E2=80=9D (Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu)

http://atmarama.net | Hlapicina (Croatia) | GPG: 52B5C810
Apr 08 2011
parent reply Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips+d gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 16:57:07 +0200, Gour-Gadadhara Dasa wrote:


 Hello,
 
 I'm running Free/PC-BSD desktop now, and here is dmd-2 experience:
 


 i386, while you are running amd64. *** Error code 1
 
 Stop in /usr/ports/lang/dmd2.
 
 
 Can we expect that something will change in regard to 64bit support on
 FreeBSD soon or it's safer to look for alternatives (gdc, ldc)?
 
 
 Sincerely,
 Gour


There is not plan to have dmd a 64bit executable. There have been reports 
that you can get it to build but support for it does not exist. However 
if you are interested in writing 64bit programs the 32bit version can 
still produce 64bit code with the -m64 flag. This may work for BSD, 
though it was develop on Linux, I think someone reported it worked?
Apr 08 2011
parent reply Gour-Gadadhara Dasa <gour atmarama.net> writes:
On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 01:26:49 +0000 (UTC)
Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips+d gmail.com> wrote:


 There is not plan to have dmd a 64bit executable. There have been
 reports that you can get it to build but support for it does not
 exist. However if you are interested in writing 64bit programs the
 32bit version can still produce 64bit code with the -m64 flag. This
 may work for BSD, though it was develop on Linux, I think someone
 reported it worked?


This really sucks and it means there won't be dmd2 in the official
ports tree 'cause it's not 1st class citizen. :-(

Otoh, I recall that Walter mentioned he would like to make dmd2
available for 64bit FreeBSD considering his servers use it.

Well, we're turning to gdc2/ldc2...


Sincerely,
Gour

--=20
=E2=80=9CIn the material world, conceptions of good and bad are
all mental speculations=E2=80=A6=E2=80=9D (Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu)

http://atmarama.net | Hlapicina (Croatia) | GPG: 52B5C810
Apr 09 2011
next sibling parent Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> writes:
Am 09.04.2011 09:34, schrieb Gour-Gadadhara Dasa:

 On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 01:26:49 +0000 (UTC)
 Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips+d gmail.com> wrote:
 

 There is not plan to have dmd a 64bit executable. There have been
 reports that you can get it to build but support for it does not
 exist. However if you are interested in writing 64bit programs the
 32bit version can still produce 64bit code with the -m64 flag. This
 may work for BSD, though it was develop on Linux, I think someone
 reported it worked?


 
 This really sucks and it means there won't be dmd2 in the official
 ports tree 'cause it's not 1st class citizen. :-(
 
 Otoh, I recall that Walter mentioned he would like to make dmd2
 available for 64bit FreeBSD considering his servers use it.
 


I think by that he meant "I want DMD to produce binaries for 64bit
FreeBSD" and not "I want DMD to be a 64bit binary".


 Well, we're turning to gdc2/ldc2...
 
 
 Sincerely,
 Gour
Apr 09 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
 On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 01:26:49 +0000 (UTC)
 
 Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips+d gmail.com> wrote:

 There is not plan to have dmd a 64bit executable. There have been
 reports that you can get it to build but support for it does not
 exist. However if you are interested in writing 64bit programs the
 32bit version can still produce 64bit code with the -m64 flag. This
 may work for BSD, though it was develop on Linux, I think someone
 reported it worked?


 
 This really sucks and it means there won't be dmd2 in the official
 ports tree 'cause it's not 1st class citizen. :-(
 
 Otoh, I recall that Walter mentioned he would like to make dmd2
 available for 64bit FreeBSD considering his servers use it.
 
 Well, we're turning to gdc2/ldc2...


On the whole, Walter does not seem to think that it's worth making dmd a 64-
bit executable. I don't think that he's necessarily against _ever_ making it a 
64-bit executable, but supporting 64-bit like that is extra work when he 
already has a lot on his plate, and he seems to see the gain of having a 64-
bit dmd binary as being minimal. So, for now at least, we only get 32-bit dmd 
binaries. But it's easy to get the 32-bit binary running on 64-bit linux, and 
I'd expect that to be true with FreeBSD as well, so it's annoying, but it 
still works. It might be better to sort out 64-bit dmd after dmd is more 
stable with regards to generating 64-bit binaries anyway.

So, yeah, it sucks that dmd is only a 32-bit binary, and there are currently 
no plans for it become a 64-bit binary, but it works, and we finally have 64-
bit code generation. So, things are improving, and we may see a 64-bit binary 
for dmd one of these days. I certainly don't understand why anyone would 
switch to gdc or ldc because dmd is a 32-bit binary. Most 64-bit linux distros 
are multilib, and running 32-bit binaries is fairly easy. Maybe it's harder 
with FreeBSD though. I don't know. It's your choice though.

- Jonathan M Davis
Apr 09 2011
parent reply Gour-Gadadhara Dasa <gour atmarama.net> writes:
yOn Sat, 9 Apr 2011 14:54:55 -0700
Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> wrote:


 So, yeah, it sucks that dmd is only a 32-bit binary, and there are
 currently no plans for it become a 64-bit binary,=20


It's really strange to have 32bit executable on 64bit OS these days
and I?m running 64bit OS for years.


 Most 64-bit linux distros are multilib, and running
 32-bit binaries is fairly easy. Maybe it's harder with FreeBSD
 though. I don't know. It's your choice though.


One of the reasons to switch to FreeBSD was to spend less time
tinkering with the OS and "just use it".

I?m not familiar enough with FreeBSD, but the message from the subject
is what one gets when attempting to install DMD-2 on x86_64, so I
believe that 32bit executable on 64bit OS is not the right combo on
FreeBSD.

Considering that, I'm turning to gdc2/ldc2 which may just work out of
the box.


Sincerely,
Gour

--=20
=E2=80=9CIn the material world, conceptions of good and bad are
all mental speculations=E2=80=A6=E2=80=9D (Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu)

http://atmarama.net | Hlapicina (Croatia) | GPG: 52B5C810
Apr 09 2011
next sibling parent reply Andrew Wiley <debio264 gmail.com> writes:
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Gour-Gadadhara Dasa <gour atmarama.net> wrote:

 yOn Sat, 9 Apr 2011 14:54:55 -0700
 Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> wrote:


 So, yeah, it sucks that dmd is only a 32-bit binary, and there are
 currently no plans for it become a 64-bit binary,


 It's really strange to have 32bit executable on 64bit OS these days
 and I?m running 64bit OS for years.


I run 64 bit Windows 7, where around 70% of my applications are 32
bit, and 64 bit Arch Linux, where multilib lets me install the 32 bit
version of most applications. If you go through the Linux kernel
archives, you'll find that running 32 bit applications on a 64 bit
kernel is actually fairly popular because 64 bit applications need
~20% more memory due to increased pointer sizes.


 Most 64-bit linux distros are multilib, and running
 32-bit binaries is fairly easy. Maybe it's harder with FreeBSD
 though. I don't know. It's your choice though.


 One of the reasons to switch to FreeBSD was to spend less time
 tinkering with the OS and "just use it".

 I?m not familiar enough with FreeBSD, but the message from the subject
 is what one gets when attempting to install DMD-2 on x86_64, so I
 believe that 32bit executable on 64bit OS is not the right combo on
 FreeBSD.


I don't know whether FreeBSD has multilib support, but it's fairly
common among 64 bit linux distros these days. I wouldn't be surprised
if the Unix folks had it as well.


 Considering that, I'm turning to gdc2/ldc2 which may just work out of
 the box.


They probably will, but they're generally one step behind the
reference compiler. Granted, one step isn't much, and they tend to
generate slightly better code than the reference compiler, so it's not
like this approach is wrong.

As has been mentioned, you could also try building DMD as a 64 bit
executable. I think I've done it in the past, but I don't remember
whether I completely finished or not. I don't remember hitting any
large issues though.
Apr 10 2011
next sibling parent reply Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> writes:
== Quote from Andrew Wiley (debio264 gmail.com)'s article

 On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Gour-Gadadhara Dasa <gour atmarama.net> wrote:

 yOn Sat, 9 Apr 2011 14:54:55 -0700
 Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> wrote:


 So, yeah, it sucks that dmd is only a 32-bit binary, and there are
 currently no plans for it become a 64-bit binary,


 It's really strange to have 32bit executable on 64bit OS these days
 and I?m running 64bit OS for years.


 I run 64 bit Windows 7, where around 70% of my applications are 32
 bit, and 64 bit Arch Linux, where multilib lets me install the 32 bit
 version of most applications. If you go through the Linux kernel
 archives, you'll find that running 32 bit applications on a 64 bit
 kernel is actually fairly popular because 64 bit applications need
 ~20% more memory due to increased pointer sizes.


Swollen pointers are a bit of a mute point to make as an argument for 32bit.
Apr 10 2011
next sibling parent Andrew Wiley <debio264 gmail.com> writes:
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> wrote:

 == Quote from Andrew Wiley (debio264 gmail.com)'s article

 On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Gour-Gadadhara Dasa <gour atmarama.net> wrote:

 yOn Sat, 9 Apr 2011 14:54:55 -0700
 Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> wrote:


 So, yeah, it sucks that dmd is only a 32-bit binary, and there are
 currently no plans for it become a 64-bit binary,


 It's really strange to have 32bit executable on 64bit OS these days
 and I?m running 64bit OS for years.


 I run 64 bit Windows 7, where around 70% of my applications are 32
 bit, and 64 bit Arch Linux, where multilib lets me install the 32 bit
 version of most applications. If you go through the Linux kernel
 archives, you'll find that running 32 bit applications on a 64 bit
 kernel is actually fairly popular because 64 bit applications need
 ~20% more memory due to increased pointer sizes.


 Swollen pointers are a bit of a mute point to make as an argument for 32bit.


Well, the argument I've generally heard is that with an application
compiled for 64 bit instead of 32, you get more memory usage for about
the same performance (unless the program is generally CPU bound
instead of IO bound), so unless the program needs more memory than can
be addressed in 32 bits, there isn't a lot of benefit.
That's what I've heard anyway. It's definitely simpler to run a 64 bit
Linux install as all 64 bit, though.
Apr 10 2011
prev sibling parent David Gileadi <gileadis NSPMgmail.com> writes:
On 4/10/11 11:44 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:

 Swollen pointers are a bit of a mute point to make as an argument for 32bit.


Please forgive this post--it's my editor mother coming out it me--but 
the correct phrase is "moot point".  See 
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mute_point
Apr 11 2011
prev sibling parent reply Gour-Gadadhara Dasa <gour atmarama.net> writes:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 12:15:50 -0500
Andrew Wiley <debio264 gmail.com> wrote:


 I run 64 bit Windows 7, where around 70% of my applications are 32
 bit, and 64 bit Arch Linux, where multilib lets me install the 32 bit
 version of most applications. If you go through the Linux kernel
 archives, you'll find that running 32 bit applications on a 64 bit
 kernel is actually fairly popular because 64 bit applications need
 ~20% more memory due to increased pointer sizes.


I'm aware of multlib in Linux distros considering I spent more than
5yrs on Gentoo mostly running x86_64 as well as >3yrs running x86_64
Archlinux.

However, multilib was used for stuff like Wine, Skype, flash plugin,
acroread...iow proprietary stuff for which vendor does not provide 64
bit version, but I've never encountered the need to use multilib for
any compiler/programming language (Scheme, Lisp, Erlang, OCaml,
Haskell).

Please, name one which does not have 64bit version?

So, I believe it's quite a moot point in regard to compiler for
programming language.


Sincerely,
Gour

--=20
=E2=80=9CIn the material world, conceptions of good and bad are
all mental speculations=E2=80=A6=E2=80=9D (Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu)

http://atmarama.net | Hlapicina (Croatia) | GPG: 52B5C810
Apr 10 2011
parent reply Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
 On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 12:15:50 -0500
 
 Andrew Wiley <debio264 gmail.com> wrote:

 I run 64 bit Windows 7, where around 70% of my applications are 32
 bit, and 64 bit Arch Linux, where multilib lets me install the 32 bit
 version of most applications. If you go through the Linux kernel
 archives, you'll find that running 32 bit applications on a 64 bit
 kernel is actually fairly popular because 64 bit applications need
 ~20% more memory due to increased pointer sizes.


 
 I'm aware of multlib in Linux distros considering I spent more than
 5yrs on Gentoo mostly running x86_64 as well as >3yrs running x86_64
 Archlinux.
 
 However, multilib was used for stuff like Wine, Skype, flash plugin,
 acroread...iow proprietary stuff for which vendor does not provide 64
 bit version, but I've never encountered the need to use multilib for
 any compiler/programming language (Scheme, Lisp, Erlang, OCaml,
 Haskell).
 
 Please, name one which does not have 64bit version?
 
 So, I believe it's quite a moot point in regard to compiler for
 programming language.


Oh, there are plenty of people around here who agree with you and think that 
dmd should have a 64-bit binary. But while it would be much better if it did 
have a 64-bit binary, it doesn't _need_ one, and Walter isn't willing to take 
the time to support one at the moment. It probably won't be as big a deal once 
dmd is more mature, and we'll probably get one eventually - especially if it's 
clear that people want it. But for now, a 32-bit binary works. And out of all 
of the things that Walter could be fixing, the lack of 64-bit binary for dmd 
is probably one of the least useful, much as I'd love to have one. There's 
just too many other bugs and issues that need to be addressed. So, it sucks, 
but it's not all that big a deal.

- Jonathan M Davis
Apr 10 2011
parent Gour-Gadadhara Dasa <gour atmarama.net> writes:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 22:56:25 -0700
Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> wrote:



 There's just too many other bugs and issues that need to be
 addressed. So, it sucks, but it's not all that big a deal.


Fair-enough...I just commented that language compilers are usually not
applications which are run using multilibs.

For me, it's cumbersome that dmd is not available via ports tree and
that's why I'll focus on gdc and/or ldc...So, we can close this
thread. ;)


Sincerely,
Gour

--=20
=E2=80=9CIn the material world, conceptions of good and bad are
all mental speculations=E2=80=A6=E2=80=9D (Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu)

http://atmarama.net | Hlapicina (Croatia) | GPG: 52B5C810
Apr 11 2011
prev sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Gour-Gadadhara Dasa" <gour atmarama.net> wrote in message 
news:20110410081339.04202749 atmarama.net...

One of the reasons to switch to FreeBSD was to spend less time
tinkering with the OS and "just use it".


I recently installed a FreeBSD virtual machine to try to make sure some of 
my stuff worked there (Using Sun's^WOracle's VirtualBox). I'm no BSD expert 
either, but based on my experiences so far, FreeBSD seems to be *exactly* 
the kind of system that you have to spend all day tinkering with just to get 
anywhere at all. My first couple installation attempts failed. I finally got 
it to install, but I can't even get the damn X11 to run. At all. Someone on 
some forum said I needed to run some X11 setup program, but I couldn't get 
that to run either. And I'm sure I did install X11 (Hell, I installed 
practically everything, including some KDE/GNOME stuff. At the very least I 
would think any sensible dependency system would know "Ok, those need X11").

Granted, there are definitely Linux distros that are the same way, too. But 
I know firsthand that there are also Linux distros that are *not* like that 
(Like Ubuntu, even if some Linux purists might shun it.)
Apr 11 2011
prev sibling parent Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> writes:
On 4/9/2011 2:54 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

 On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 01:26:49 +0000 (UTC)

 Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips+d gmail.com> wrote:

 There is not plan to have dmd a 64bit executable. There have been
 reports that you can get it to build but support for it does not
 exist. However if you are interested in writing 64bit programs the
 32bit version can still produce 64bit code with the -m64 flag. This
 may work for BSD, though it was develop on Linux, I think someone
 reported it worked?


 This really sucks and it means there won't be dmd2 in the official
 ports tree 'cause it's not 1st class citizen. :-(

 Otoh, I recall that Walter mentioned he would like to make dmd2
 available for 64bit FreeBSD considering his servers use it.

 Well, we're turning to gdc2/ldc2...


 
 On the whole, Walter does not seem to think that it's worth making dmd a 64-
 bit executable. I don't think that he's necessarily against _ever_ making it a 
 64-bit executable, but supporting 64-bit like that is extra work when he 
 already has a lot on his plate, and he seems to see the gain of having a 64-
 bit dmd binary as being minimal. So, for now at least, we only get 32-bit dmd 
 binaries. But it's easy to get the 32-bit binary running on 64-bit linux, and 
 I'd expect that to be true with FreeBSD as well, so it's annoying, but it 
 still works. It might be better to sort out 64-bit dmd after dmd is more 
 stable with regards to generating 64-bit binaries anyway.
 
 So, yeah, it sucks that dmd is only a 32-bit binary, and there are currently 
 no plans for it become a 64-bit binary, but it works, and we finally have 64-
 bit code generation. So, things are improving, and we may see a 64-bit binary 
 for dmd one of these days. I certainly don't understand why anyone would 
 switch to gdc or ldc because dmd is a 32-bit binary. Most 64-bit linux distros 
 are multilib, and running 32-bit binaries is fairly easy. Maybe it's harder 
 with FreeBSD though. I don't know. It's your choice though.
 
 - Jonathan M Davis


And I'm sure that bug reports for dmd that were from a 64 bit build of the
compiler itself would get addressed.  So,
while it might not come with a pre-built 64 bit binary, that's not a
particularly large stumbling block.
Apr 09 2011