Should LLVM become the default D-lang platform?

[Iain Buclaw]

On 11 January 2014 00:24, Manu <turkeyman at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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)?

As I understand, neither GCC nor LLVM are capable of producing PDB.
Has Microsoft even release any documentation or code necessary to
produce files in their PDB format?