LLVM IR influence on compiler debugging

[Adam Wilson]

On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 17:59:36 -0700, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com>  
wrote:

> On Saturday, July 07, 2012 02:10:49 bearophile wrote:
>> > My guess is that, unless something changes significantly, DMD
>> > will remain a niche tool; useful as a reference/research
>> > compiler, but for actual work people will use LDC or GDC.
>>
>> The D reference compiler can't be DMD forever.
>
> Why not? Having multiple compilers is great, but I seriously doubt that  
> Walter
> is going to work on any other compiler (I don't believe that he _can_  
> legally
> work on any other - except maybe if he writes a new one himself -  
> because he'd
> get into licensing issues with dmc), and unless you're talking about  
> years
> (decades?) from now, I very much doubt that the reference compiler is  
> going to
> be a compiler that Walter Bright can't work on.
>
> I see no problem with dmd being the reference compiler and continuing to  
> be
> so. And if other compilers get used more because their backends are  
> faster,
> that's fine too.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

Walter can't use LLVM? Why not? He wouldn't have to work on LLVM and the  
glue code is considered front-end. I admit I am not terribly well informed  
of the legal issues here. But it seems to me that bolting the DMDFE onto a  
different back--end can't be a problem because the agreement only covers  
the DMCBE, and the DMDFE is 100% Walter owned, he can do with it what he  
pleases and all Symantec can do is pout..

-- 
Adam Wilson
IRC: LightBender
Project Coordinator
The Horizon Project
http://www.thehorizonproject.org/