Should LLVM become the default D-lang platform?

Manu turkeyman at gmail.com
Fri Jan 10 16:24:59 PST 2014


On 11 January 2014 06:59, Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw at gdcproject.org> wrote:

> On 10 January 2014 20:54, John Colvin <john.loughran.colvin at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 20:51:19 UTC, Dwhatever wrote:
> >>
> >> This might have been brought up before but I couldn't find any thread
> >> about this. As things has progressed I wonder if Digital Mars DMD should
> >> move over to use LLVM instead of its own code generation and compiler
> >> framework.
> >>
> >> As I see it with the small amount of contributors D-language has, DMD
> will
> >> never support anything beyond x86 as there are no resources for this.
> Also,
> >> why spend time on recreating the the code generation which has already
> been
> >> done with LLVM? This enables this community to focus on the language
> which
> >> is the most important part as well as supporting more and future
> processor
> >> targets.
> >
> >
> > This comes up regularly. It's already been done. Ldc *is* dmd with llvm
> > backend. Gdc is the same idea but with the gcc framework.
>
> Indeed. But naturally I'd suggest they move to GCC.  ;-)
>

Is it possible that GDC will ever produce binaries that will link against
the microsoft libs without problems?
In my experience, GDC produces intrinsic calls to its own runtime all over
the place, and it's not compatible with the microsoft runtime. I also
recall library format mismatch, but that was a long time ago, and I think
we discussed it again since deciding that GDC is now using the same format
as VisualC in windows...?
Can GDC write PDB debuginfo into the objects (CV8 I think it is)?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20140111/5a29587d/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list