PureBasic Forums - English

Hi Frederic and the PureBasic development Team,

I have been running Vista 64-bit for awhile now, and I'm registered user of PureBasic. I am curious to know if PureBasic is capable of doing x64 compilations, like applications or just DLLs? I have been asked to make some plug-ins but I don't see PureBasic programming language being x64 capable.

Is there any near future plans for x64 compilations? or are we still yet many more years behind with PureBasic ever supporting?

Thunder93 wrote:Is there any near future plans for x64 compilations? or are we still yet many more years behind with PureBasic ever supporting?

yes as far as i know.(no time plan yet)
Fact is that the used assembler 'FASM' is able to
compile to x64 binarys. So there is a lot of work for
using all the new registers to speed up code.
Also a lot of work have to been done to create the
libs x64-binary-compatible .
(using 64 bit registers instead of 32 bit longs )
Not an easy task and very time consuming.
Maybe a new c-compiler needed to create all PB-Libs.

But,

Did you seen a lot of native x64 programs ?
Seen any box with the remark: 'Written for x64(vista64) only' ?

fact is, that nowadays more than 99% of new software is written
for x32.
fact is, the market (except some Rendering-Software) is still
(after 3 years x64 cpu's become available)
not exist.
fact is, only newest OS's are x64 capatible, like OSX 10.5 or vista64,
but most users are using x32 os's.
And you cannot run a x64 binary on a x32 machine.....

just my 2 cents from the PB-House-Comedian.......

fact is, that nowadays more than 99% of new software is written
for x32.

Another fact is that if i like to use 64bit precision when dealing with Audio, it would speed it up to be using 64bit registers and math.

Besides, if the purebasic libs are both-way-compatible, you could eventually compile the same program with the 64bit switch and just leave it off, compile again, and get a 32bit working version.

Of course if you use inline assembly you would have to adapt it to get use of the 64bit registers, however, that could be easily done using the compiler-if's


SO THE MARKET DOES EXIST, just in smaller areas of interest. Audio processing being a good point

Does anyone tried to update fasm and include x64 inline instructions?

Hi Rings,

Actually I do see various native x64 programs available (for starters: http://start64.com/), and for several reasons the x64 programming is going to become mainstream in such a short period. But of course you'll have to-do some thorough research to discovery some of these reasons..

It's irrelevant to be comparing number of available programs for different architectures. Look at how long x86 architecture been around, and how much programming information is available for x86 architecture. And heck look at the road blocks I'm having trying to do up some x64 compilations with my programming language! I expect different programming languages are with this block also.

Btw; You can run x86 binary on Vista64

Hi djes, I've updated my fasm, but I don't know how to include x64 inline instructions.

Besides, a 'basic' language with 64bit support (and even libraries optimized for 64bit) ?

Cool-factor + 10

Thunder93: study fasm-documentation to generate x64-binarys
i recommented visiting the fasm-forums, there is a lot of information
about x64. i have done that myself for education.
And yes, x64 is the future we all know.
But you shouldn't jump on a railcar until you know that its leave
the station.

btw.
you cannot run x64 binarys on vista32
you cannot run DOS-PRG on any vista
you cannot run Win16 PRG on any vista


@Fool: you're also right with audio-processing,how can i forgot.
You know any existing x64 binary audiosoftware ?

before (and that did happend twice before) a flamewar begins,
i would close this thread, as normaly everything is said.
please be patient with that.

How to work it with PureBasic is another thing, pretty good, threads that could help keeps getting locked.

So I guess x64 DLL compilations is entirely out of the question with PureBasic?

Thunder93 wrote:How to work it with PureBasic is another thing, pretty good, threads that could help keeps getting locked.

you wrote:

Thunder93 wrote:.. or are we still yet many more years behind with PureBasic ever supporting?

well, that is a bit of flamewar beginning ......
nothing closed for now.

Thunder93 wrote:So I guess x64 DLL compilations is entirely out of the question with PureBasic?

no, but not for now. it takes time.
If you wanna do it yourself, use fasm directly or use a compiler
that has x64 support build in .

(anyone knows a Basic -Compiler that has this feature ?
- Fool you'r right, a killer -feature then )

Hi Rings,

x64 question has been asked throughout the few years on here, so far nothing that appeared to be from the officials. To me, that seems very logical question, not to mention I'm an licensed customer, and have the right to know if x64 support is in the near future. To determine if I'm really forced into buying yet another programming language and learning from grounds zero all over again, for language which does support x64 programming...


There was some mentioning that PB Linux packages has some x64 capabilities already where-else PB Windows package doesn't? Is this information accurate some?

Rings wrote: @Fool: you're also right with audio-processing,how can i forgot.
You know any existing x64 binary audiosoftware ?

.

Actually, steinberg are supposed to be the first to release. The others
have upgraded internal mixing to 64bit precision (with 32bit code), and
I expect them to create 64bit binaries so the 64bit precision will be
done using x64 assembly rather soon

Is it impossible to add inline fasm instructions by the usual "!" way? like this ? (Can't try, I only have a 32 bits processor)

Maybe the problem would be the executable format, as Fasm needs to be able to assemble x64 code, or with a linker (I don't know if the purebasic linker will accept that)

Hi djes, I don't mind testing, but I'm already lost in what needing to be done.