On 9/27/20 7:03 PM, Martin Frb via fpc-devel wrote:
On 27/09/2020 09:34, Sven Barth via fpc-devel wrote:
Ben Grasset via fpc-devel <fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
<mailto:fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org>> schrieb am So., 27. Sep.
2020, 07:50:
That last quote is absolute BS, to be very frank. There is no
reason whatsoever not to use a natively-64-bit copy of FPC if
running a natively-64-bit copy of Windows, and there hasn't been
for well over half a decade at this point.
Yes, there is a reason: you can not build a i8086 or i386 cross
compiler with the Win64 compiler (or any non-x86 compiler to be fair)
due to missing Extended support. Thus the majority of the FPC Core
team considers the Win64 compiler as inferior and also unnecessary
cause the 32-bit one works just as well on that platform.
Just my 2 cents.
Well, one the one hand, native 64 bit is only really important if it
can do something that 32 bit can not do. (faster, bigger sources, ....).
There's no known advantage of using a native win64 compiler, versus the
win32 to win64 crosscompiler. There could be, if, while compiling very
large programs, the 32-bit address space the compiler uses during
compilation was exhausted (i.e. if the memory used by the compiler
during compilation exceeds 4GB), and this happens AFAIK in C compilers,
but, as far as we know, it just doesn't happen with FPC, because we
don't use that much memory.
On the other hand, not everyone needs a win64 to win32 cross compiler.
And if they do, a native 32bit compiler can be renamed and will
happily serve as such a cross compiler. (But that is not a must be
included / such workarounds may not be wanted, especially since they
might cause repeated extra work)
A win64 to win32 crosscompiler is crippled, because it doesn't support
80-bit extended float. That's why only a native win32 compiler is used
to target win32.
Nikolay
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
