On Monday, 24 July 2023 at 13:30:27 UTC, cc wrote:
>
> Is there any list of known significant "gotchas" with moving to LDC from DMD?  Any unexpected surprises to watch out for or be careful for?  I'm thinking of all the "features" of DMD that are now considered verboten by many users (e.g. compiling with -release, disabling of asserts or array bounds checking, etc).  Known edge cases of compiler optimization causing different behavior between vendors?

Some LDC stuff: https://wiki.dlang.org/LDC-specific_language_changes#Violations_of_the_specification
Pretty much everything for GDC: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gdc/Missing-Features.html

On Monday, 24 July 2023 at 13:51:18 UTC, Richard (Rikki) Andrew Cattermole wrote:
> On 25/07/2023 1:26 AM, devosalain wrote:
>> I could be interesting to also compare the licenses of the 3 compilers.
>
> There isn't a huge difference between them.
>
> The frontend, druntime and most of phobos (minus zlib and curl) are all Boost regardless of compiler.
>
> That just leaves backends, which depends upon GCC and LLVM. So if you can use GCC and Clang, your fine to use GDC and LDC.

As far as I know any contribution to GCC has to be done under a GPLv3 compatible license (like Boost) and then it's all redistributed under GPLv3+Runtime Exception clause despite having other licenses previously.
So GDC since it went mainline GCC should be distributed under GPLv3.