64-bit support

[John Reimer]

Bill Baxter wrote:
> John Reimer wrote:
>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>
>>> Not to mention that it should fix a raft of other long-standing bugs 
>>> that have to do with OPTLINK.  I'm pretty convinced that LLVM is the 
>>> way to go long term.  It would free Walter up from having to deal 
>>> with back end issues, but still allow him to tinker with the back end 
>>> or contribute patches to the LLVM team if he needs something to be 
>>> fixed for D.  It would allow D to benefit from a world wide community 
>>> working on porting to new back-end targets, and making improvements 
>>> to the optimizer etc. Not to mention allowing D to piggyback on the 
>>> corporate support from the likes of Apple that is going into LLVM 
>>> right now.
>>>
>>> I see basically no down sides to such a move, other than making the 
>>> move would initially be a big time suck.  But I think the writing is 
>>> on the wall that OPTLINK will have to be replaced eventually one way 
>>> or another.  Going with LLVM looks to be the best way to do that in 
>>> terms of cost/benefit ratios.
>>>
>>> --bb
>>
>>
>> Wouldn't there be the exact same issue that keeps Walter from 
>> personally merging dmd frontend with the gcc backend (I believe llvm 
>> is based on gcc technology)?  It would have been optimal long ago for 
>> him to be working on something like gdc as the reference compiler, but 
>> he apparently can not look upon another compiler's source (including 
>> gcc, especially the backend) because this could "taint" his closed 
>> source property.  :(
> 
> Nope.  LLVM license is not GPL.  It looks to be basically a ZLIB/PNG 
> type licence.  Very brief.  Very few strings attached.
> 
>> It would have to be another person that worked on the back-end target. 
>> Walter would have to develop tag-team: ie. he would improve the 
>> frontend and have someone else work on the back end.  And I don't 
>> think he's likely to "handicap" himself that way.  I think this was 
>> one topic that came up on this list many times...
> 
> Don't think it's an issue with LLVM and its license.
> 
>> It's really quite unfortunate that this is such an issue with the D 
>> language and it's compiler because it really keeps the toolset from 
>> going where it should have gone long ago -- a completely open source 
>> compiler system spearheaded by the designer.  Any developer that 
>> starts a new D compiler project is forced to track with Walter's 
>> closed-source-backend D compiler.  This is why gdc fails to keep up. 
>> This will be the case with every other compiler out there that tries 
>> to do the same.
>>
>> Sorry for the pessimism... Maybe there's a way to solve this problem?
> 
> Good news!  There's no problem that needs solving w.r.t. LLVM, as far as 
> I can tell.
> 
> --bb


That does appear to be good news... Now if only Walter would take 
notice.  This would be the first time (I think) that this argument has 
been effectively removed. :)

-JJR

-JJR