On Sunday, 12 August 2012 at 12:04:05 UTC, Jakob Ovrum wrote:
On Sunday, 12 August 2012 at 12:02:06 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1204676&s=affb44baf90ed48786f63e20a6052df1&p=37188144#post37188144
Andrei
I'm the OP.
It's still a work in progress, some
On Sunday, 12 August 2012 at 12:04:05 UTC, Jakob Ovrum wrote:
On Sunday, 12 August 2012 at 12:02:06 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1204676&s=affb44baf90ed48786f63e20a6052df1&p=37188144#post37188144
Andrei
I'm the OP.
It's still a work in progress, some
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 11:25:29 +0200
"Paulo Pinto" wrote:
> On Monday, 13 August 2012 at 07:05:11 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> > Apple's strategy appears to be that computers are
> > non-upgradable,
> > non-repairable, disposable items that last until the next
> > release:
>
> It is this type of
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:42:19 +0200
"Adam D. Ruppe" wrote:
> On Monday, 13 August 2012 at 04:44:43 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> >> It's not the current plan. Frankly, I think 32 bits is rapidly
> >> becoming irrelevant on the desktop.
> >
> > Bullshit.
>
> While I agree with the sentiment (in fa
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 11:23:09 +0200
"Paulo Pinto" wrote:
> On Monday, 13 August 2012 at 01:18:14 UTC, Sean Cavanaugh wrote:
> > On 8/12/2012 8:15 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> >> On 8/13/12, Sean Cavanaugh wrote:
> >>> we had to modify the code
> >>
> >> Sure enough I've found your name:
> >> http
On 8/14/12, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> That's a Windows-ism.
I think it's technically a linker-ism. Surely LD supports a similar feature?
On 13-08-2012 23:58, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
On 8/13/12, Walter Bright wrote:
I've thought many times about adding a D feature that allows one to specify
"use
this random character string instead of the identifier as the symbol name
when
writing the object file", but never got around to it.
Is
No doubt that COFF 64 bits it are good and with high priority,
though small, but support of COFF 32 bits will be a gift that
will add popularity to dmd. Anyway I have words that add + to 64
bit and to 32 bit tools that supports linking with ms toolset.
On 8/13/12, Walter Bright wrote:
> I've thought many times about adding a D feature that allows one to specify
> "use
> this random character string instead of the identifier as the symbol name
> when
> writing the object file", but never got around to it.
Isn't that what .def files are for? Or m
On 8/13/2012 2:37 PM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
I've wanted a feature like that on several occasions (mostly when interfacing
with non-C/C++ languages). How hard it would it be to implement? Theoretically,
it sounds simple enough.
You could do it with a pragma or something. It's always going
On 13-08-2012 23:34, Walter Bright wrote:
On 8/13/2012 12:41 PM, Sean Kelly wrote:
Strangely,libc on OSX is very backwards-compatible. To the point where
buggy
functions were preserved as-is and updated versions exported via weird
labels
linked by the compiler using some evil macro code. Needles
On 8/13/2012 12:41 PM, Sean Kelly wrote:
Strangely,libc on OSX is very backwards-compatible. To the point where buggy
functions were preserved as-is and updated versions exported via weird labels
linked by the compiler using some evil macro code. Needless to say, D
unfortunalely links to the bugg
On Monday, 13 August 2012 at 18:29:13 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 8/13/2012 6:23 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-08-13 08:21, Walter Bright wrote:
We'll see. It has already happened on OSX.
The good think on Mac OS X is that basically all system
libraries are universal
binaries (both 32
On Aug 13, 2012, at 12:04 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-08-12 at 23:29 -0700, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> […]
>> OSX has a lot less backwards compatibility to worry about.
>
> Not entirely true.
>
>
> Apple's strategy appears to be that computers are non-upgradable,
> non-repairable, d
On 8/13/2012 6:23 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-08-13 08:21, Walter Bright wrote:
We'll see. It has already happened on OSX.
The good think on Mac OS X is that basically all system libraries are universal
binaries (both 32 and 64bit) meaning it really doesn't matter for the user if an
app
On 8/13/2012 3:55 AM, d_follower wrote:
Does that mean that we get x64 support on Windows (without legacy OMF support)?
Linking with MSVC-produced libraries will work, too?
Yes.
On Monday, August 13, 2012 02:51:30 Walter Bright wrote:
> 64 bits is far more important. We don't have arrows for every target, we
> have to pick the juiciest ones.
I have no idea how much mork work it is to add 32-bit COFF on top of adding
64-bit COFF, and I'm totally fine with just targeting 6
On Monday, 13 August 2012 at 04:44:43 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
It's not the current plan. Frankly, I think 32 bits is rapidly
becoming irrelevant on the desktop.
Bullshit.
While I agree with the sentiment (in fact, one of my newest
computers
is 32 bit; I got a mini laptop - not quite netb
On 2012-08-13 09:04, Russel Winder wrote:
Apple's strategy appears to be that computers are non-upgradable,
non-repairable, disposable items that last until the next release:
everyone is supposed buy the latest version as soon as it comes out and
so be on the latest kit(*).
But their products
On 2012-08-13 08:21, Walter Bright wrote:
We'll see. It has already happened on OSX.
The good think on Mac OS X is that basically all system libraries are
universal binaries (both 32 and 64bit) meaning it really doesn't matter
for the user if an application is 32 or 64bit.
BTW, around 6.6%
On Monday, 13 August 2012 at 09:52:05 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
64 bits is far more important. We don't have arrows for every
target, we have to pick the juiciest ones.
Does that mean that we get x64 support on Windows (without legacy
OMF support)? Linking with MSVC-produced libraries will wo
On 8/12/2012 11:29 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, August 12, 2012 23:21:48 Walter Bright wrote:
On 8/12/2012 10:50 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Even still, it's a far cry to compare ditching 16-bit with
(effectively) shunning 32-bit. Yes, 64-bit is bocoming more and more
important, and ye
On Monday, 13 August 2012 at 07:05:11 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
On Sun, 2012-08-12 at 23:29 -0700, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
[…]
OSX has a lot less backwards compatibility to worry about.
Not entirely true.
Apple's strategy appears to be that computers are
non-upgradable,
non-repairable, disp
On Monday, 13 August 2012 at 01:18:14 UTC, Sean Cavanaugh wrote:
On 8/12/2012 8:15 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
On 8/13/12, Sean Cavanaugh wrote:
we had to modify the code
Sure enough I've found your name:
http://www.microsoft.com/games/mgsgamecatalog/halopccredits.aspx
I noticed you before h
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 23:21:48 -0700
Walter Bright wrote:
> On 8/12/2012 10:50 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> > Even still, it's a far cry to compare ditching 16-bit with
> > (effectively) shunning 32-bit. Yes, 64-bit is bocoming more and more
> > important, and yes, 32-bit is becoming less and less
On Sun, 2012-08-12 at 23:29 -0700, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
[…]
> OSX has a lot less backwards compatibility to worry about.
Not entirely true.
Apple's strategy appears to be that computers are non-upgradable,
non-repairable, disposable items that last until the next release:
everyone is supposed
26 matches
Mail list logo
