Self-hosting D compiler -- Coming Real Soon Now(tm)

[Dicebot via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 11 September 2014 at 10:13:17 UTC, ketmar via 
Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 11:54:08 +0200
> Daniel Kozak via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> 
> wrote:
>
>> What? I don't see any problem with binary blob. With gcc it is 
>> same I
>> need binary blob to be able to compile gcc from source. And if 
>> I am
>> really scary of binary dmd compiler I can still use last C++ 
>> version
>> and compile it with gcc, then use this product to compile next 
>> ddmd
>> and so on.
> as i said -- good luck with it. D is not GCC (yet?), and GDC is 
> not a
> part of GCC. it's very naive to assume that FOSS programmer 
> that wants
> to try D will take last C++ version, then compiles it, than 
> compiles
> next D version and so on. he will take either gdc from distro 
> repo (and
> this will be old, if not ancient) just to find that it has no 
> shiny new
> features the programmer just read about in NG, or will try to 
> build
> HEAD and... and drop D, 'cause "if they make it so hard to 
> build their
> compiler, they can play with it without me".

As a package maintainer I have no problem with chained building 
of the compiler. Will take quite some time when its needed but 
nothing critical.

There is a known issue that gcc release model is badly compatible 
with one of DMD frontend (which causes certain headache with gdc 
package maintenance) but it only means that gdc won't be 
recommended for casual ddmd hacking and ldc will prevail for this 
specific case. Don't see it as a big deal if building with gdc 
still remains possible for maintainers.