DMD back end dev-kit

[John Reimer]

Hello Robert,

> John Reimer Wrote:
> 
>> Hello Bill,
>> 
>>> It's been talked about before, but exactly how much money do the
>>> people who own the copyright to DMD's backend want in order to make
>>> it freely available freely -- as at least a lib?  It's hard to
>>> believe anyone would appraise that thing with a high dollar value
>>> given its less than stellar optimization abilities, and since
>>> everyone knows you can't make much money off dev tools these days
>>> anyway.
>>> 
>>> I'd happily chip in $100 US if it meant finally having an official D
>>> compiler that anyone can recompile for themselves just by typing
>>> "make dmd".
>>> 
>>> Or is it more a matter of not being able to find the copyright
>>> holders in question to ask them?  If so, give us the names and
>>> whatever info you have, and I bet someone will be able to track 'em
>>> down.
>>> 
>>> --bb
>>> 
>> I'd give another $100.
>> 
>> -JJR
>> 
> "Economic Stimulus Act" FTW.
> 
> Seriously, though, there's GDC. Maybe LLVMDC, too. So while I wouldn't
> say no to a compiling lib of the backend, is it really needed?
> 


LLVMDC is only partially operational.  gdc hasn't proven that it can "keep 
up".  They are both very important projects, but having the complete dmd 
compiler means even more potential for active fixing of elusive bugs in the 
reference compiler, code generator optimization and updates for more recent 
instructions sets, improved object file format support on win32 (coff), shared-lib 
fixes for linux(?), experimentation, improved tool support, compiler embedding, 
immediate bug hunting expeditions for library developers... and easier distribution 
of the compiler in general -- many things that Walter doesn't have time to 
fix.  It's not likely to happen even with the economic incentive.  But having 
a completely open reference compiler can mean a lot when it comes to getting 
D adopted.  This has been one of D's major handicaps, I think, for a long 
time.

-JJR