I intended to do it myself, but dropped it due to lack of time. It would not be a "first step" in porting to other platforms any longer, since David Friedman has already made a compiler with GCC backend from DMD source.

http://home.earthlink.net/~dvdfrdmn/d/

D is not completely expressable in ANSI-C, but it can be done in C with some compiler-dependent extensions, conserning exception handling so that it can cooperate with standard mechanisms of the operating system. On embedded systems, even more ANSI-like C can be used.

-eye

Enzo Michelangeli schrieb:

> Hi,
> 
> I just discovered D, and from what I can see it's pretty close to my
> "dream language". Has anybody ever suggested to create a compiler backend
> producing ANSI C source code, as e.g. SmartEiffel does for Eiffel
> programs? This would probably affect the performances negatively, but it
> would represent a useful first step to port the language to other
> platforms.
> 
> TIA --
> 
> Enzo
> 
> 

"Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:cbatqt$1fsp$1@digitaldaemon.com
| There's nothing hard about what the Intel optimizer is doing in theory, it
| just takes a lot of careful implementation work. The Intel team has some
| obvious advantages over me:
|
| 1) They don't have to spend years writing and debugging a C++ front end.
| They just bought one.
|
| 2) They have access to the engineers who designed the chip to get better
| info on what code to generate.
|
| 3) They don't have to write a runtime library.
|

Sorry to ask, but why is that? (3)

| If I could only work on the optimizer/code generator, I could match what
| they do.
|
| But to answer the original question, yes, there are many possible
D-specific
| optimizations that would not be done by a C back end.

-----------------------
Carlos Santander Bernal

"Carlos Santander B." <carlos8294@msn.com> wrote in message news:cbd4ob$1umu$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> "Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> escribió en el mensaje
> news:cbatqt$1fsp$1@digitaldaemon.com
> | There's nothing hard about what the Intel optimizer is doing in theory, it
> | just takes a lot of careful implementation work. The Intel team has some
> | obvious advantages over me:
> |
> | 1) They don't have to spend years writing and debugging a C++ front end.
> | They just bought one.
> |
> | 2) They have access to the engineers who designed the chip to get better
> | info on what code to generate.
> |
> | 3) They don't have to write a runtime library.
> |
>
> Sorry to ask, but why is that? (3)

They use MS's on Win32, and GCC's on Linux

"Matthew" <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> escribió en el mensaje
news:cbd696$20o4$1@digitaldaemon.com
| "Carlos Santander B." <carlos8294@msn.com> wrote in message
| news:cbd4ob$1umu$1@digitaldaemon.com...
|| "Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> escribió en el mensaje
|| news:cbatqt$1fsp$1@digitaldaemon.com
||| There's nothing hard about what the Intel optimizer is doing in theory,
it
||| just takes a lot of careful implementation work. The Intel team has some
||| obvious advantages over me:
|||
||| 1) They don't have to spend years writing and debugging a C++ front end.
||| They just bought one.
|||
||| 2) They have access to the engineers who designed the chip to get better
||| info on what code to generate.
|||
||| 3) They don't have to write a runtime library.
|||
||
|| Sorry to ask, but why is that? (3)
|
| They use MS's on Win32, and GCC's on Linux

Well, outsourcing is the way to go... lol!
Thanks!

-----------------------
Carlos Santander Bernal

Carlos Santander B. wrote:

> "Matthew" <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> escribió en el mensaje
> news:cbd696$20o4$1@digitaldaemon.com
> | "Carlos Santander B." <carlos8294@msn.com> wrote in message
> | news:cbd4ob$1umu$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> || "Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> escribió en el mensaje
> || news:cbatqt$1fsp$1@digitaldaemon.com
> ||| There's nothing hard about what the Intel optimizer is doing in theory,
> it
> ||| just takes a lot of careful implementation work. The Intel team has some
> ||| obvious advantages over me:
> |||
> ||| 1) They don't have to spend years writing and debugging a C++ front end.
> ||| They just bought one.
> |||
> ||| 2) They have access to the engineers who designed the chip to get better
> ||| info on what code to generate.
> |||
> ||| 3) They don't have to write a runtime library.
> |||
> ||
> || Sorry to ask, but why is that? (3)
> |
> | They use MS's on Win32, and GCC's on Linux
> 
> Well, outsourcing is the way to go... lol!
> Thanks!

Indeed. "MinGW" GCC uses MS's on Win32 too :-)

Cheers,
Sigbjørn Lund Olsen