32-bit DMD compiled programs prints "segmentation fault"

Exil 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 mailing list