Thread overview
Non-x86 targets for DMD
6 days ago
solidstate1991
6 days ago
Kagamin
1 day ago
Stefan Koch
April 14
Since the backend is no longer restrained by Symantec licenses, there's no reason why there should be only be x86 and amd64 CPU support even if GDC and LDC already have their own implementations.

I would help out after I either finish my college or get booted out from there for failing to finish it (I currently need a consultant for my master's thesis I'm making on my project written in D, contact me if you would want to help me out in this, I'll provide you with two way Hungarian-English translation), I'm already planning my suggestions and contribution for a better vector support (I would suggest to add 32 bit and 64 bit fixed-point vectors, the 32 bit ones would be great for per-pixel graphics in certain cases to avoid workarounds).
April 14
On 14/04/2017 2:22 PM, solidstate1991 wrote:
> Since the backend is no longer restrained by Symantec licenses, there's
> no reason why there should be only be x86 and amd64 CPU support even if
> GDC and LDC already have their own implementations.

Here is my suggestion, try and document the backend.
You may form a very different opinion after trying to do that or come up with a game plan on how to implement non-X86 targets.

6 days ago
On Friday, 14 April 2017 at 13:29:35 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
>
> Here is my suggestion, try and document the backend.
> You may form a very different opinion after trying to do that or come up with a game plan on how to implement non-X86 targets.

As I see there's a lot of problem with the DLL support under Windows, I'm accepting your suggestion and help the x86 side first instead. I still don't have a hardware to test the compiler in the future (will getting a RPi Zero and RPi 3 in the future as well as other popular single board PCs to debug my own projects on different targets).
6 days ago
On Wednesday, 17 May 2017 at 18:05:32 UTC, solidstate1991 wrote:
> I still don't have a hardware to test the compiler in the future (will getting a RPi Zero and RPi 3 in the future as well as other popular single board PCs to debug my own projects on different targets).

Can't you run it in qemu?
1 day ago
On Wednesday, 17 May 2017 at 22:16:35 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
>
> Can't you run it in qemu?

Probably I could, might even work parallel with other stuff, especially stuff that are mainly lexical (register naming, etc). So far I studied the ARM assembly language, and it seems less scary than the x86 one, also the conditional execution might be useful with the ? : operators (if thumb isn't used).
1 day ago
On Monday, 22 May 2017 at 01:05:04 UTC, solidstate1991 wrote:
> On Wednesday, 17 May 2017 at 22:16:35 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
>>
>> Can't you run it in qemu?
>
> Probably I could, might even work parallel with other stuff, especially stuff that are mainly lexical (register naming, etc). So far I studied the ARM assembly language, and it seems less scary than the x86 one, also the conditional execution might be useful with the ? : operators (if thumb isn't used).

Conditional execution is not in the later models of ARM, I believe.
Also does not really provide advantages over conditional jumps, except in rare circumstances.