DMD backend generation future with the new AI race processor

[Richard (Rikki) Andrew Cattermole]

On 11/03/2024 11:55 AM, Brad Roberts wrote:
> The issues I had with doing the arm DMD backend were primarily the 
> difficulty of deciphering and penetrating the dmd backend, not the arm 
> parts.  The other big issue I had was me and my work patterns.  I got 
> enough done that I knew it could be done.  That's an inflection point 
> for me where it's likely I'll drop many projects, particularly the 
> exploratory ones.  I was also busy with a more than full time job and 
> had to prioritize it over massive side projects.

I can't even find leafs or entry points to begin an understanding.

So +1 on the indecipherable aspect to it.

> As to being competitive, that's unrealistic for the same reason that 
> dmd's backend isn't competitive with ldc and gdc.  It can reach the 
> level of competent and usable (which _is_ a useful level of 
> functionality), but there's just no way to complete with the legions of 
> engineers that work on those optimizers and backend code generators.

Walter has recently been arguing against @restrict, and previously 
argued against atomics being intrinsics with me.

Even with Walter working full time on it for a few years, that backend 
will never match what LLVM 19 can do without things like that.

It is unfortunate.