32-bit DMD compiled programs prints "segmentation fault"
Exil at gmall.com
Tue Nov 5 02:55:58 UTC 2019
On Sunday, 3 November 2019 at 19:28:41 UTC, Suleyman wrote:
> On Sunday, 3 November 2019 at 18:35:41 UTC, Exil wrote:
>> Those kinds of decisions are in part what affect the
>> maintainability of a project, so it would be a fair assessment
>> to include.
> Let's just say it's a lot less than LLVM maintainers.
LLVM developers don't work specifically on LDC do they?
> Usually the backend just works but we could use some more
> backend contributors.
It doesn't for me, I come across quite a few bugs due to the
> Translating the backend from C to D was a step in the right
> direction, but it still looks like C. Maybe it can be
> modernized. But Walter has a pile of more important work at all
> levels, language, frontend, and backend, so lesser the
> dependence on Walter is except for getting approval the more
> can be achieved in parallel.
Modernizing isnt the issue.
Wouldn't you agree that LLVM has the absolute least dependence on
Walter :)? All arguments you've made are all basically why LDC is
the better option than anything that could be done with a custom
backend. Its just a waste of resources, and the quality of LDC in
comparison to DMD speaks volumes, especially when you consider
LDC is maintained mostly by a single individual.
More information about the Digitalmars-d