Basic benchmark

Brad Roberts braddr at
Tue Dec 16 19:36:43 PST 2008

> Sounds to me like LDC is already ahead of clang's C++.
> I actually asked the same question over on the list "could it be that
> LDC is already the most advanced compiler availble on the LLVM
> platform?"  One guy answered "No, there's llvm-g++", but another guy
> answered "it depends on whether you count llvm-g++ as an LLVM-based
> compiler or not".    I'm not sure what llvm-g++ is, but from that I'm
> guessing maybe it's an llvm front end with a g++ back-end.  In which
> case, I wouldn't really count it.
> But there are a lot of LLVM projects listed here:
> Maybe one of those is more advanced than LDC, not that "advanced" has
> a very specific meaning anyway.
> LDC should definitely be on that list, though.
> --bb

llvm-gcc and -g++ are the gcc/g++ front ends bolted onto the llvm
middle/backends.  So in that respect, almost identical to dmd's fe
bolted onto llvm.  The major difference being that llvm-gcc/g++ are
complete (as far as gcc and llvm are complete)

There used to be a C backend to llvm, but that was abandoned a year or
two ago, if I recall correctly.  As far as I know, there's never been a
c++ backend, nor any use of gcc's backends with llvm.

Since LDC isn't re-implementing the frontend of d, just splicing dmd's
onto llvm and that clang is still implementing both c and c++, yes, ldc
is further along in some ways than clang is.  But it's not exactly an
apples to apples comparison (please pardon the pun).


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list