Basic benchmark

[Bill Baxter]

On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Brad Roberts <braddr at puremagic.com> wrote:
>> 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:
>> http://llvm.org/ProjectsWithLLVM/
>> 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)

Ah, ok.  Thanks for clearing that up.  So that means I probably should
have been bugging the llvm-g++ guys instead of the clang guys.
So what is llvm-g++ doing about exception handling and Windows support?
Guess I'll have to go sign up for another mailing list now to find out...

> 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).

Got it.

--bb