D compiler as part of GCC

[Vincenzo Ampolo]

Jerry Quinn wrote:

> Hi, folks,

Hi Jerry

> 
> I'm interested in creating a D front end for GCC that would be part of the
> GCC codebase.  My feeling is that a GDC that is part of GCC distributions
> will likely have more life than one that must be updated whenever a new
> GCC release comes out.  As with linux kernel in-tree drivers being kept up
> to date, an integrated GDC would tend to move forward as well.

Yes, you are right.

> 
> To do this though, copyright on the code must be assigned to the FSF. 
> This means that even though the DMD front end sources are licensed under
> the GPL, they cannot be directly used to write this front end as the
> copyright is owned by DigitalMars.  Everyone who contributes code must not
> look at the DMD compiler source code to avoid accidentally contributing
> code illegally.  Therefore, this will be a completely new implementation
> of D.

Well, things are not so "black or white". Walter is a very kind person and 
i'm 100% sure he will release the copyright if there is a chance to have the 
gdc frontend integrated in the gcc codebase.

> 
> The obvious disadvantage of doing this is that it will be a slow process
> to get to a working D compiler.  However, one advantage to the D world is
> firming up and validating the language specification so that the language
> is not defined by what the DMD compiler does.

It's the main part i'm fed up about D. No clear language specifications, if 
you want it, you have to put your hands into the dmd frontend.

> 
> My personal desire is to implement (and track) the 2.0 language since I
> would like to see that feature set available through GCC.  Second, by the
> time a working front end becomes part of GCC, the 2.0 language will likely
> be complete.

This is the goal of all the people involved in the gdc project. However, a 
not stable language specification (or worse, not existent) makes all this 
work very hard to do.
 
> 
> One question I have (of many) is whether a different name should be used. 
> If this is called GDC there will be some confusion with the current GDC. 
> What thoughts do you all have?

What do you mean? do you wanna start another D frontend for gcc? Well, i 
don't suggest you to start this way. A compiler is one of the most complex 
software a human is able to think. Compilers need a group of skilled people 
and, mainly, many years to be stable and to be production-friendly.

Since GDC was a dead project, me and Michael thought that we could help in 
supporting that code and do enhancements. This leads us to make a GDC for 
hosted on bitbucket ( http://bitbucket.org/goshawk/gdc/wiki/Home ).

If you are interested in gdc consider to join us and continue in supporting 
the d frontend.

> 
> In general is there interest in this project, especially contributing to
> it?

There is interest in this project of course, but real life works take all 
the time sometimes. But with a large team of developers (and maybe a better 
language specification) we would be able to produce and release a good D 
compiler based on the gcc backend.

We are trying to align the current trunk of the project to lastest dmd 
frontend and gcc backend. After we reach that goal we can start thinking to 
further plans.

I'm here if you have more questions or suggestions :)

> 
> Thanks,
> Jerry

-- 
Vincenzo Ampolo (goshawk)

http://goshawknest.wordpress.com