Should LLVM become the default D-lang platform?

[Iain Buclaw]

On 11 January 2014 11:58, David Nadlinger <code at klickverbot.at> wrote:
> On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 21:00:24 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>>
>> Because Walter wouldn't be able to work on his current job any longer if
>> he looks into other compiler vendors source code.
>>
>> IP laws are always a complicated issue.
>
>
> Unless you have an actual explanation as to why this would be the case, I'd
> simply regard this as FUD. I see how the viral nature of the GCC license
> might be a problem for that, but as far as LLVM is concerned, Walter would
> even be able to just rebrand Clang as DMC and ship it as a closed-source
> package. LLVM also doesn't require any copyright assignments, which might be
> an impediment for contributing any fixes back to GCC.
>

Remember when I told you that LLVM devs reverted commits made by core
GCC developers because apparently there was no explicit contribution
by them to LLVM?  :-)