ibuclaw at ubuntu.com
Mon Feb 13 11:11:19 PST 2012
On 13 February 2012 17:22, Daniel Murphy <yebblies at nospamgmail.com> wrote:
> "Iain Buclaw" <ibuclaw at ubuntu.com> wrote in message
> news:mailman.288.1329151783.20196.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
>> It's the fact that it does *nothing* to change code generation, as D
>> code compiles down to the same as C equivalent.
> Isn't that what a C backend is supposed to do?
My point is that D is low level / slick enough, that it generates
near-identical code to C/C++ in comparison benchmarks - recent example
I can recall, someone did a speed test on vectors in GDC vs G++, and
found both to be pretty much on par with each other. Then again, I
wouldn't expect less when both use the same backend.
>> Code represented like that is exactly what gdc emits to it's backend
>> for your example, albeit, a in a little bit more simplified language
>> (and a little bit more optimized once it goes through all codegen
>> passes =)
> That's a good point. Maybe this effort would be better spent trying to
> build avr-gdc instead of the compiler centipede.
I think it starts with a runtime library that is written for the given
architecture in mind. The compiler is already there in my opinion,
and I have seen little reason for it not to be.
*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
More information about the Digitalmars-d