Migrating dmd to D?

[Iain Buclaw]

On Mar 2, 2013 3:01 PM, "SomeDude" <lovelydear at mailmetrash.com> wrote:
>
> On Saturday, 2 March 2013 at 14:47:55 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
>>
>> On Saturday, 2 March 2013 at 07:16:04 UTC, SomeDude wrote:
>>>
>>> On Saturday, 2 March 2013 at 06:50:32 UTC, SomeDude wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Exactly. This fixed subset would be very limited in comparison to the
full language (I can imagine something looking a bit like a smaller Go,
there would probably be no templates at all, no CTFE, maybe even no
exceptions, for instance), but would be orthogonal, completely stable in
terms of spec, and known to work. It could be defined for other real world
usages as well, like embedding in small appliances.
>>>
>>>
>>> It would also make it easy to bootstrap the compiler on new platforms.
>>
>>
>> I don't see how this would help with proting to different platofrms at
all if you have a cross-compiler.
>>
>> Yes, the DMD frontend currently isn't really built with
cross-compilation in mind (e.g. using the host's floating point arithmetic
for constant folding/CTFE), but once this has been changed, I don't see how
the language used would make any difference in re-targetting at all.
>>
>> You simply use another host system (e.g. Windows/Linux x86) until the
new backend/runtime is stable enough for the compiler to self-host.
>>
>> David
>
>
> And what if you *don't* have a cross compiler ? You compile the D subset
(bootstrapper) in C and off you go (provided you have a reasonable C
compiler on that platform).

I don't see how using only a subset of the language would have an effect on
cross compiling or porting of a compiler self hosted in D.  Your argument
is lost on me some dude...

Regards
-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20130302/4f41642b/attachment.html>