Al 26/01/12 19:48, En/na Alex Rønne Petersen ha escrit:
> On 26-01-2012 18:06, xancorreu wrote:
>> Al 26/01/12 17:15, En/na H. S. Teoh ha escrit:
>>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 01:34:39PM +0100, Trass3r wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, 26 January 2012 at 11:46:19 UTC, sami wrote:
>>>>> my question is if there thing i can do with dmd only and visa
>>>>> versa?
>>>>> what the feature of one of them over the other?
>>>>> what the different between them in term of inline assembly,
>>>>> performance, platform and bugs?
>>>> They share the frontend, i.e. language support is pretty much the
>>>> same.
>>>> dmd's backend is limited both in terms of performance and platform
>>>> support (x86 only), but it compiles D code faster.
>>>> gdc inherits gcc's sophisticated optimizer capabilities, but may
>>>> have unique bugs in its glue code.
>>> gdc also inherits gcc's multiplatform support, together with platform
>>> specific optimizations common to all gcc-based compilers.
>>
>> I note that gdc is completely free software but dmd runtime is not. An
>> alternative is ldc, also free.
>
> Huh? Surely you mean the DMD back end? Everything else is either GPL or Boost.

Yes, sorry.

Xan.

> Building gcc in general is a pain. It's just a little less painful on
> *nix systems, but still painful.

I can't agree.
The build instructions contain everything. Has been straightforward for me right from the beginning.

> I looked up ldc recently, and it seems that it hasn't been updated for
> years. Seems that gdc is the only other D compiler that's still actively
> maintained.

Please don't spread such misinformation.
https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/commits/master

On Thursday, January 26, 2012 19:56:22 Trass3r wrote:
> > I looked up ldc recently, and it seems that it hasn't been updated for years. Seems that gdc is the only other D compiler that's still actively maintained.
> 
> Please don't spread such misinformation. https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/commits/master

Unfortunately, with both gdc and ldc, the first hits that google gives you are generally to out-of-date web pages, so both projects quickly end up looking out-of-date and/or dead.

- Jonathan M Davis

Sorry I made a mistake here:
I confused gdmd with rdmd :-)



On 26/01/12 14:08, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
> actually is a d source file that does more than a simple translation ... as dmd
>
> On 26/01/12 13:59, Trass3r wrote:
>>> There is also gdmd : dmd front end that use gdc
>> It's nothing but a perl script that translates dmd command line options into gdc ones.

On 26/01/12 18:59, xancorreu wrote:
> Al 26/01/12 18:43, En/na H. S. Teoh ha escrit:
>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 06:06:38PM +0100, xancorreu wrote:
>> [...]
>>> I note that gdc is completely free software but dmd runtime is not.
>> You mean free as in freedom, not as in price.
>
> Yes, both

I don't what that means. The DMD backend license is not compatible with the GPL, so it could never be bundled with a *nix distro. Otherwise, I don't think there are any consequences. It has nothing else in common with non-free products.

The complete source is on github, and you're allowed to freely download it, compile it, and make your own clone on github. What else would you want?