Zimbu

[Iain Buclaw]

On Sep 15, 2013 7:55 AM, "Nick Sabalausky" <
SeeWebsiteToContactMe at semitwist.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 20:04:10 +0100
> Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>
> > On 14 September 2013 19:47, Nick Sabalausky
> > <SeeWebsiteToContactMe at semitwist.com> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 13:14:09 +0200
> > > Joseph Rushton Wakeling <joseph.wakeling at webdrake.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Theoretically, shouldn't GDC be able to support just about any
> > >> architecture for which GCC has a backend?  The runtime and Phobos
> > >> need porting, but the core language itself should be usable, no?
> > >
> > > And doesn't LLVM have a way to compile D *to* C?
> > >
> >
> > If it did, there would be quite a few bits missing as much of D can
> > not be easily represented in C.
> >
>
> Maybe, but as I recall, it was actually the low-level LLVM bytecode
> that gets translated to C, not the higher-level constructs.
>
> Related:
> http://d.hatena.ne.jp/ABA/20130331#p1
>
> Although I guess that's using "LLVM IR -> JS", not "LLVM IR -> C". But
> I could swear I've seen a "LLVM IR -> C" before...
>

Doesn't give the output of the final result, which is disappointing.

Also, translation to English is poor, but I think the blog also says that
translating D classes don't work, which is what I'd expect in D -> C
translation too.

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/20130915/6ebf3abc/attachment.html>