Jerry Quinn Wrote:

> [also posted to D.gnu]
> 
> Hi, folks,
> 
> I'm interested in creating a D front end for GCC that would be part of the GCC codebase.  My feeling is that a GDC that is part of GCC distributions will likely have more life than one that must be updated whenever a new GCC release comes out.  As with linux kernel in-tree drivers being kept up to date, an integrated GDC would tend to move forward as well.
> 
> To do this though, copyright on the code must be assigned to the FSF.  This means that even though the DMD front end sources are licensed under the GPL, they cannot be directly used to write this front end as the copyright is owned by DigitalMars.  Everyone who contributes code must not look at the DMD compiler source code to avoid accidentally contributing code illegally.  Therefore, this will be a completely new implementation of D.
> 
> The obvious disadvantage of doing this is that it will be a slow process to get to a working D compiler.  However, one advantage to the D world is firming up and validating the language specification so that the language is not defined by what the DMD compiler does.
> 
> My personal desire is to implement (and track) the 2.0 language since I would like to see that feature set available through GCC.  Second, by the time a working front end becomes part of GCC, the 2.0 language will likely be complete.
> 
> One question I have (of many) is whether a different name should be used.  If this is called GDC there will be some confusion with the current GDC.  What thoughts do you all have?
> 
> In general is there interest in this project, especially contributing to it?
> 
> Thanks,
> Jerry
> 

Google's Go will be in GCC. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00500.html . They are pushing it very hard.

Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
> Jerry Quinn Wrote:
> 
>> [also posted to D.gnu]
>>
>> Hi, folks,
>>
>> I'm interested in creating a D front end for GCC that would be part of the GCC codebase.  My feeling is that a GDC that is part of GCC distributions will likely have more life than one that must be updated whenever a new GCC release comes out.  As with linux kernel in-tree drivers being kept up to date, an integrated GDC would tend to move forward as well.
>>
>> To do this though, copyright on the code must be assigned to the FSF.  This means that even though the DMD front end sources are licensed under the GPL, they cannot be directly used to write this front end as the copyright is owned by DigitalMars.  Everyone who contributes code must not look at the DMD compiler source code to avoid accidentally contributing code illegally.  Therefore, this will be a completely new implementation of D.
>>
>> The obvious disadvantage of doing this is that it will be a slow process to get to a working D compiler.  However, one advantage to the D world is firming up and validating the language specification so that the language is not defined by what the DMD compiler does.
>>
>> My personal desire is to implement (and track) the 2.0 language since I would like to see that feature set available through GCC.  Second, by the time a working front end becomes part of GCC, the 2.0 language will likely be complete.
>>
>> One question I have (of many) is whether a different name should be used.  If this is called GDC there will be some confusion with the current GDC.  What thoughts do you all have?
>>
>> In general is there interest in this project, especially contributing to it?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jerry
>>
> 
> Google's Go will be in GCC. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00500.html . They are pushing it very hard. 

Who is "they"?

Andrei

Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:

> Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
> > Jerry Quinn Wrote:
> > 
> >> [also posted to D.gnu]
> >>
> >> Hi, folks,
> >>
> >> I'm interested in creating a D front end for GCC that would be part of the GCC codebase.  My feeling is that a GDC that is part of GCC distributions will likely have more life than one that must be updated whenever a new GCC release comes out.  As with linux kernel in-tree drivers being kept up to date, an integrated GDC would tend to move forward as well.
> >>
> >> To do this though, copyright on the code must be assigned to the FSF.  This means that even though the DMD front end sources are licensed under the GPL, they cannot be directly used to write this front end as the copyright is owned by DigitalMars.  Everyone who contributes code must not look at the DMD compiler source code to avoid accidentally contributing code illegally.  Therefore, this will be a completely new implementation of D.
> >>
> >> The obvious disadvantage of doing this is that it will be a slow process to get to a working D compiler.  However, one advantage to the D world is firming up and validating the language specification so that the language is not defined by what the DMD compiler does.
> >>
> >> My personal desire is to implement (and track) the 2.0 language since I would like to see that feature set available through GCC.  Second, by the time a working front end becomes part of GCC, the 2.0 language will likely be complete.
> >>
> >> One question I have (of many) is whether a different name should be used.  If this is called GDC there will be some confusion with the current GDC.  What thoughts do you all have?
> >>
> >> In general is there interest in this project, especially contributing to it?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Jerry
> >>
> > 
> > Google's Go will be in GCC. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00500.html . They are pushing it very hard.
> 
> Who is "they"?
> 
> Andrei

Good question. Not sure if it is actually Google, or some enthusiast, but certainly that's a good result for a language that was released couple of months ago. Not to mention that it's not any near to D at this stage. All I want for D, if not being included into GCC oficially, but at least to have a maintained GCC compiler.

On 01/27/2010 03:40 PM, Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
>
> Google's Go will be in GCC. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00500.html . They are pushing it very hard.

I bet it helps that Go was originally implemented as a front-end to GCC

Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> 
>> Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
>>> Google's Go will be in GCC.
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00500.html . They are
>>> pushing it very hard.
>> Who is "they"?
>> 
>> Andrei
> 
> Good question. Not sure if it is actually Google, or some enthusiast,
> but certainly that's a good result for a language that was released
> couple of months ago. Not to mention that it's not any near to D at
> this stage. All I want for D, if not being included into GCC
> oficially, but at least to have a maintained GCC compiler.

I agree. Although my perception is that Google itself is not pushing Go and that the language does not have legs to resist on merit alone, that may change any time. It would be great if D were present in GCC - thanks Jerry for your initiative, and please keep it up.

Andrei

On 1/27/2010 5:56 PM, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
> On 01/27/2010 03:40 PM, Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
>> Google's Go will be in GCC.  <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00500.html>.
> 
> I bet it helps that Go was originally implemented as a front-end to GCC

I’d thought the original compiler was based on Ken Thompson’s C compiler for Plan 9.

—Joel Salomon

On 01/27/2010 11:24 PM, Joel C. Salomon wrote:
> On 1/27/2010 5:56 PM, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
>> On 01/27/2010 03:40 PM, Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
>>> Google's Go will be in GCC.<http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00500.html>.
>>
>> I bet it helps that Go was originally implemented as a front-end to GCC
>
> I’d thought the original compiler was based on Ken Thompson’s C compiler
> for Plan 9.
>
> —Joel Salomon

Meh, one of the two

Andrei Alexandrescu, el 27 de enero a las 17:40 me escribiste:
> Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
> >Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> >
> >>Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
> >>>Google's Go will be in GCC. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00500.html . They are pushing it very hard.
> >>Who is "they"?
> >>
> >>Andrei
> >
> >Good question. Not sure if it is actually Google, or some enthusiast, but certainly that's a good result for a language that was released couple of months ago. Not to mention that it's not any near to D at this stage. All I want for D, if not being included into GCC oficially, but at least to have a maintained GCC compiler.
> 
> I agree. Although my perception is that Google itself is not pushing Go and that the language does not have legs to resist on merit alone, that may change any time. It would be great if D were present in GCC - thanks Jerry for your initiative, and please keep it up.
> 
> Andrei

Just see the next message:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00501.html

2010-01-26  Ian Lance Taylor  <iant@google.com>

       * MAINTAINERS: Add myself as Go frontend maintainer.


If you think Google is not pushing Go, think again...

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu, el 27 de enero a las 17:40 me escribiste:
>> Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
>>> Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
>>>
>>>> Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
>>>>> Google's Go will be in GCC.
>>>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00500.html . They are
>>>>> pushing it very hard.
>>>> Who is "they"?
>>>>
>>>> Andrei
>>> Good question. Not sure if it is actually Google, or some enthusiast,
>>> but certainly that's a good result for a language that was released
>>> couple of months ago. Not to mention that it's not any near to D at
>>> this stage. All I want for D, if not being included into GCC
>>> oficially, but at least to have a maintained GCC compiler.
>> I agree. Although my perception is that Google itself is not pushing
>> Go and that the language does not have legs to resist on merit
>> alone, that may change any time. It would be great if D were present
>> in GCC - thanks Jerry for your initiative, and please keep it up.
>>
>> Andrei
> 
> Just see the next message:
> 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00501.html
> 
> 2010-01-26  Ian Lance Taylor  <iant@google.com>
> 
>        * MAINTAINERS: Add myself as Go frontend maintainer.
> 
> 
> If you think Google is not pushing Go, think again...

I'd seen that, but my understanding is that Ian is a maintainer of the frontend, not necessarily that Google is pushing Go or even that Google is paying him to spend time on Go. What am I missing?

Andrei

Andrei Alexandrescu, el 28 de enero a las 09:49 me escribiste:
> >Just see the next message:
> >
> >http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00501.html
> >
> >2010-01-26  Ian Lance Taylor  <iant@google.com>
> >
> >       * MAINTAINERS: Add myself as Go frontend maintainer.
> >
> >
> >If you think Google is not pushing Go, think again...
> 
> I'd seen that, but my understanding is that Ian is a maintainer of the frontend, not necessarily that Google is pushing Go or even that Google is paying him to spend time on Go. What am I missing?

They are paying him to spend time on Go, at least is a "20% project".

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------