Zimbu

[Nick Sabalausky]

On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 10:27:38 +0100
Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw at ubuntu.com> wrote:

> On Sep 15, 2013 7:55 AM, "Nick Sabalausky" <
> SeeWebsiteToContactMe at semitwist.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> 

Hmm, yea, without actually knowing what I'm talking about, I'd bet it's
probably using "Bare D" (or is it "Naked D"?), ie without druntime or
phobos.

Which would make sense: If "compile to C" is treated as an
architecture, then the platform-specific sections of druntime/phobos
probably don't have version sections to handle the C "architecture".

And I'm sure druntime is needed for classes to work. I know that was
the case several years ago when I tried to get D (pre-D1, IIRC) going on
GBA and only got a minimal subset:
http://semitwist.com/articles/article/view/d-on-gba-nds-progress-thanks-to-oopman