In windows if you want use some lib that is not provide dynamic dll support, you need compile it with dmc. In this case your need deal a lot problem with lack of c head file . if there is a vc++ version backend will be big help for a lot of people who is not familiarity with c/c++ .<br>
<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2010/6/22 Eldar Insafutdinov <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:e.insafutdinov@gmail.com">e.insafutdinov@gmail.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
== Quote from dsimcha (<a href="mailto:dsimcha@yahoo.com">dsimcha@yahoo.com</a>)'s article<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5">> What is the long-term plan for the current DMD backend? I've noticed the<br>
> first steps towards 64-bit support were just checked in today (excitement to<br>
> the extreme). However, the backend is under such a restrictive license (which<br>
> I understand Walter is not free to change) that it has a "bus factor" of 1.<br>
> If Walter were to stop maintaining it, noone else would be able to, if I<br>
> understand the licensing issues correctly.<br>
> Is there a chance of these licensing issues being cleared up so that the<br>
> backend can be released under a more permissive license? If not, while I<br>
> understand Walter's decision to use a backend he was familiar with in the<br>
> beginning, it seems like we should abandon such a heavily encumbered backend<br>
> now that it needs serious work.<br>
<br>
</div></div>Hi<br>
<br>
I agree with what Sean says. Even more, DMD backend is good for development<br>
process, because it is very fast as opposed to more popular ones like llvm or gcc.<br>
What really worries me is what is going to happen on Windows. We have the burden<br>
which is old file format and optlink. There are still big problems with the<br>
linker, it has random problems on big projects, building them with debug info is<br>
even more problematic. As far as I understood that linker is being rewritten to C,<br>
but the process is very slow. It may take years to complete the port, and then to<br>
make it 64bit capable, isn't it? All existing problems would be propagated<br>
further. I would suggest(again and again) to add a new Windows backend targeting<br>
MinGW or MSVC toolchain. It should not necessarily replace the existing one, but<br>
people would at least have freedom and there wouldn't be situation that you are<br>
stuck in development when linker fails. Also those toolchain support 64bit, so it<br>
is another advantage. For those who still wants digital mars toolchain - there<br>
will be an old one. Remembering that it took Walter about 6 weeks to implement<br>
MacOS backend, that doesn't seem too bad. In the end, Windows is the most popular<br>
OS despite our personal preferences, and it's worth spending some time for it.<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
</blockquote></div><br>