Should LLVM become the default D-lang platform?

[Manu]

On 13 January 2014 21:40, Kai Nacke <kai at redstar.de> wrote:

> On Monday, 13 January 2014 at 05:04:46 UTC, Manu wrote:
>
>> On 12 January 2014 00:35, Kai Nacke <kai at redstar.de> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You currently can't get the best of all worlds in a single compiler.
>>>
>>> LLVM does not support exceptions on native Win32. (Same is true for Win64
>>> but I hope to change this.) LLVM does not support CodeView debug symbols.
>>> Not in the format embedded in object file and not as PDB.
>>> In short, you loose the complete native Windows tool chain.
>>>
>>>
>> Is there any progress on any of these things BTW?
>> At some point, sooner or later, we're REALLY going to need a performance
>> compiler on Windows...
>>
>
> My patch for exceptions on Win64 is finally in review. I hope to commit it
> soon.
>
> The Google guys are adding COFF line number support right now.
>
> Regards,
> Kai


Oooohh yeah, this is exciting! :D
How about Win32? That's really important too, particularly since DMD
doesn't support Win32 :/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20140113/553ebe71/attachment-0001.html>