DMD Backend Long-term

[Long Chang]

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++ .



2010/6/22 Eldar Insafutdinov <e.insafutdinov at gmail.com>

> == Quote from dsimcha (dsimcha at yahoo.com)'s article
> > What is the long-term plan for the current DMD backend?  I've noticed the
> > first steps towards 64-bit support were just checked in today (excitement
> to
> > the extreme).  However, the backend is under such a restrictive license
> (which
> > I understand Walter is not free to change) that it has a "bus factor" of
> 1.
> > If Walter were to stop maintaining it, noone else would be able to, if I
> > understand the licensing issues correctly.
> > Is there a chance of these licensing issues being cleared up so that the
> > backend can be released under a more permissive license?  If not, while I
> > understand Walter's decision to use a backend he was familiar with in the
> > beginning, it seems like we should abandon such a heavily encumbered
> backend
> > now that it needs serious work.
>
> Hi
>
> I agree with what Sean says. Even more, DMD backend is good for development
> process, because it is very fast as opposed to more popular ones like llvm
> or gcc.
> What really worries me is what is going to happen on Windows. We have the
> burden
> which is old file format and optlink. There are still big problems with the
> linker, it has random problems on big projects, building them with debug
> info is
> even more problematic. As far as I understood that linker is being
> rewritten to C,
> but the process is very slow. It may take years to complete the port, and
> then to
> make it 64bit capable, isn't it? All existing problems would be propagated
> further. I would suggest(again and again) to add a new Windows backend
> targeting
> MinGW or MSVC toolchain. It should not necessarily replace the existing
> one, but
> people would at least have freedom and there wouldn't be situation that you
> are
> stuck in development when linker fails. Also those toolchain support 64bit,
> so it
> is another advantage. For those who still wants digital mars toolchain -
> there
> will be an old one. Remembering that it took Walter about 6 weeks to
> implement
> MacOS backend, that doesn't seem too bad. In the end, Windows is the most
> popular
> OS despite our personal preferences, and it's worth spending some time for
> it.
>
> Cheers
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20100622/faffa24d/attachment.html>