apologize for my poor english ...

An attempt to clarify things about gcc:

GCC compiler is a core compiler + a certain number of
front end, the C compiler is for historical reason in the
core compiler directory. There is not point in gcc which
forbid to use a front-end to build another front-end. g++
use this trick and is always compiled from the newly created
gcc C compiler so on, from recent gcc distribution, the C++
front-end is written in ISO C rather in K&R C. Actually there is
no attempt to use a front-end other than the C compiler itself
but you can write a front-end in C++, and compile it through
the newly compiled c++ compiler. That's "just" need trickery in
configure/makefile (and indeed you can't get only the Core+C
minimal distribution). Actualy this is used in many part of gcc,
mainly for library, (a part of the java runtime is written in C++ ;).
It allows to create portable compiler which, at start of build
process, only assume it exist a vaguely K&R or ISO compliant
compiler installed

About the tree RTL generation: The Run Time Language is the
portable data struct which must describe the program being
to be compiled. Because the RTL is already used in C/C++/ada
/java/PASCAL there is probably no point to create new RTL
expressions for D. I mean than I hope that D does not contains
any things that can't be expressed in the other language given
above ? That's one of the first point which needs to be checked.

You need also a shell script/unix basic tools/Makefile wizard, configuration/Makefile models of gcc are not easy to understand.

What about the gcc compiler version you want to use to start this work ? 3.1 compiler has been released a few time ago, 2.95.3 is probably the most used actually, 3.0 compiler will probably become the most used in one year.

If you want also the front-end acceptable in future for inclusion in
a gcc distributions you need to comply with the GNU standards
coding, to prove than the language is usefull (used but a sufficiently
number of people, apologize for the lack of precision about "sufficiently
number of") and indeed the front end must be GPL'ed.

The licence terms of the D specifications is perhaps a problem

"Copyright (c) 1999-2002 by Digital Mars, All Rights Reserved"

Is this means than the document which describe D is copyrighted or the specifications themself are copyrighted ? (I'm newbie on copyright things ...)

Note than at the point of your current work I think it's better than D
specifications can be modified only by one person but, in futur,
many people can get a bad feeling to work if specifications
are closed.

regards,
Philippe Elie

Philippe Elie wrote:
> apologize for my poor english ...
> 
> An attempt to clarify things about gcc:
> 
> GCC compiler is a core compiler + a certain number of
> front end, the C compiler is for historical reason in the
> core compiler directory. There is not point in gcc which
> forbid to use a front-end to build another front-end. g++
> use this trick and is always compiled from the newly created
> gcc C compiler so on, from recent gcc distribution, the C++
> front-end is written in ISO C rather in K&R C. Actually there is
> no attempt to use a front-end other than the C compiler itself
> but you can write a front-end in C++, and compile it through
> the newly compiled c++ compiler. That's "just" need trickery in
> configure/makefile (and indeed you can't get only the Core+C
> minimal distribution). Actualy this is used in many part of gcc,
> mainly for library, (a part of the java runtime is written in C++ ;).
> It allows to create portable compiler which, at start of build
> process, only assume it exist a vaguely K&R or ISO compliant
> compiler installed
>

Money where your mouth is.  Show me an example.  Its conjecture until
I see an example of a C++ front end somewhere.

> About the tree RTL generation: The Run Time Language is the
> portable data struct which must describe the program being
> to be compiled. Because the RTL is already used in C/C++/ada
> /java/PASCAL there is probably no point to create new RTL
> expressions for D. I mean than I hope that D does not contains
> any things that can't be expressed in the other language given
> above ? That's one of the first point which needs to be checked.
> 
> You need also a shell script/unix basic tools/Makefile wizard,
> configuration/Makefile models of gcc are not easy to understand.
> 
> What about the gcc compiler version you want to use to start this
> work ? 3.1 compiler has been released a few time ago, 2.95.3 is
> probably the most used actually, 3.0 compiler will probably become
> the most used in one year.
> 

I'd prefer to aim for 3.1 with the idea that by the time we're finished...  Otherwise 2.95.3 or 3.0 will be obsolecent by the time we and D are done.

> If you want also the front-end acceptable in future for inclusion in
> a gcc distributions you need to comply with the GNU standards
> coding, to prove than the language is usefull (used but a sufficiently
> number of people, apologize for the lack of precision about "sufficiently
> number of") and indeed the front end must be GPL'ed.
> 
> The licence terms of the D specifications is perhaps a problem
> 
> "Copyright (c) 1999-2002 by Digital Mars, All Rights Reserved"
> 
> Is this means than the document which describe D is copyrighted
> or the specifications themself are copyrighted ? (I'm newbie
> on copyright things ...)
>

The specification AFAIK is closed, the front end is GPL or Artistic license. (dual)

Shouldn't be a problem.

-Andy

> Note than at the point of your current work I think it's better than D
> specifications can be modified only by one person but, in futur,
> many people can get a bad feeling to work if specifications
> are closed.
> 
> regards,
> Philippe Elie
> 
> 

In article <ae30b2$h63$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Philippe Elie says...
>
>apologize for my poor english ...

As far as I am concerned, you do not need to aplogize.  I am from the U.S., and I have not yet learned "proper" English.

>
>An attempt to clarify things about gcc:
>
>GCC compiler is a core compiler + a certain number of
>front end, the C compiler is for historical reason in the
>core compiler directory. There is not point in gcc which
>forbid to use a front-end to build another front-end. g++
>use this trick and is always compiled from the newly created
>gcc C compiler so on, from recent gcc distribution, the C++
>front-end is written in ISO C rather in K&R C. Actually there is
>no attempt to use a front-end other than the C compiler itself
>but you can write a front-end in C++, and compile it through
>the newly compiled c++ compiler. That's "just" need trickery in
>configure/makefile (and indeed you can't get only the Core+C
>minimal distribution). Actualy this is used in many part of gcc,
>mainly for library, (a part of the java runtime is written in C++ ;).
>It allows to create portable compiler which, at start of build
>process, only assume it exist a vaguely K&R or ISO compliant
>compiler installed
>
>About the tree RTL generation: The Run Time Language is the
>portable data struct which must describe the program being
>to be compiled. Because the RTL is already used in C/C++/ada
>/java/PASCAL there is probably no point to create new RTL
>expressions for D. I mean than I hope that D does not contains
>any things that can't be expressed in the other language given
>above ? That's one of the first point which needs to be checked.

I am so sure of this that I did not bother to think about it.  There is nothing really fancy or sophisticated about Bright D.  Instead, it is a simple and solid approach, doing the things that should have been done twenty years ago.

>
>You need also a shell script/unix basic tools/Makefile wizard, configuration/Makefile models of gcc are not easy to understand.

I can usually figure out this kind of thing.  My code is usually not very elegant, but it works.

>
>What about the gcc compiler version you want to use to start this work ? 3.1 compiler has been released a few time ago, 2.95.3 is probably the most used actually, 3.0 compiler will probably become the most used in one year.

Yes, I know 3.1 is brand new.  I prefer to try to hook up to it.  Time is a very scarce resource, and I do not have time to try to hook Bright D to the 2.95.3 version.

>
>If you want also the front-end acceptable in future for inclusion in
>a gcc distributions you need to comply with the GNU standards
>coding, to prove than the language is usefull (used but a sufficiently
>number of people, apologize for the lack of precision about "sufficiently
>number of") and indeed the front end must be GPL'ed.

I think "sufficiently number of people" is exactly precise.

>
>The licence terms of the D specifications is perhaps a problem
>
>"Copyright (c) 1999-2002 by Digital Mars, All Rights Reserved"
>
>Is this means than the document which describe D is copyrighted or the specifications themself are copyrighted ? (I'm newbie on copyright things ...)

I have some idea about how they work.  It will require us persuading Walter to sign an assignment for the front end that he has already released.  I think he knows that.  That is why he released the front end without the back end.  Perfectly reasonable as far as I am concerned.

>
>Note than at the point of your current work I think it's better than D
>specifications can be modified only by one person but, in futur,
>many people can get a bad feeling to work if specifications
>are closed.

Linux seems to be working very well, having gone for years with the specifications in the hands of just one person.

PERL has done will by Larry Wahl, as well.

As for me, I am not much impressed with the products of committees.

>
>regards,
>Philippe Elie
>
>

Andy Walker

"andy" <acoliver@apache.org> a écrit dans le message de news: 3D056FC1.9050808@apache.org...
> Philippe Elie wrote:

[snip using g++ compiler to compile another front-end]

> Money where your mouth is.  Show me an example.  Its conjecture until I see an example of a C++ front end somewhere.

It will remain conjecture until someone create one. AFAIK nobody as used the gcc compiler in this way.

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/phil.el  the example is not yet complete, I get
problem
to locate the right C++ library to use during bootstrap.

regards,
Philippe Elie

>>Money where your mouth is.  Show me an example.  Its conjecture until
>>I see an example of a C++ front end somewhere.
> 
> 
> It will remain conjecture until someone create one. AFAIK nobody as used
> the gcc compiler in this way.
> 
> http://perso.wanadoo.fr/phil.el  the example is not yet complete, I get
> problem
> to locate the right C++ library to use during bootstrap.
>

Cool.  solve that and I'll be on board.  (but I still will not find love  for C++...never have, never will -- hope D wipes it out!)

-Andy

> regards,
> Philippe Elie
> 
> 
> 

> Cool.  solve that and I'll be on board.  (but I still will not find love
>   for C++...never have, never will -- hope D wipes it out!)

Don't worry about it, we do not all like the same girls either, an believe me,
that is a good thing!
Jan

> Don't worry about it, we do not all like the same girls either, an believe me,
> that is a good thing!
> Jan
> 
> 

agreed ;-)  I'll spare you on my hypothesizing on exactly what kind of girl C++ is ;-)

-Andy

Jan Knepper wrote:
> andy wrote:
> 
>> > Don't worry about it, we do not all like the same girls either, an 
>> believe me,
>> > that is a good thing!
>> > Jan
>> agreed ;-)  I'll spare you on my hypothesizing on exactly what kind of
>> girl C++ is ;-)
> 
> I don't think it is a girl! <VBG>
> Jan
>  

Now I really feel dirty for ever working on it ;-)