alternative D frontends should have a LLVM backend

[Clay Smith]

0ffh wrote:
> BLS wrote:
>> LLVM advantages are well known, but IMO alternative D Frontends like 
>> DIL should have a LLVM backend because this will open us a backdoor to 
>> DOT NET via MSIL
> 
> I don't really know. Whenever I need to generate code, I go via C because
> it supports every architecture I could ever need (or in fact think of).
> For a D backend the LLVM might have it's advantages, but I really can't
> think of any. How is generating LLVM better than generating C source?
> 
> Regards, Frank

I looked at the LLVM features page, and it says...

"A C back-end useful for testing and for generating native code on 
targets other than the ones listed above."

So, LLVM can generate C code, and it can do more. I suppose that's why 
it is better.