"Daniel Murphy" <yebblies@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
>There are 32 bit avrs.  Search for 'AVR32'.
Thanks, I know :) But Arduino uses 8-bit.

>"Manu" <turkeyman@gmail.com> wrote:
>I think you'll find that most arduino projects are using a much more
>capable avr chip, probably avr32 chips.
Never used Arduino but it's site and wikipedia mentiones only 8-bit AVR's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arduino
Here http://arduino.cc/en/Main/Hardware also all AVR's are 8-bit

reply but a 32bit version is in the works -- http://arduino.cc/blog/2011/09/17/arduino-launches-new-products-in-maker-faire/

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Alex_Dovhal <alex_dovhal@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Daniel Murphy" <yebblies@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
> >There are 32 bit avrs.  Search for 'AVR32'.
> Thanks, I know :) But Arduino uses 8-bit.
>
>
>

32bit version will be arm architecture

In this case can we hope for a d frontend?

Il giorno ven, 03/02/2012 alle 22.33 +1000, Danni Coy ha scritto:

> 32bit version will be arm architecture
> 

>Andrea Fontana" <advmail@katamail.com> wrote:
>In this case can we hope for a d frontend?
That depends if it's MCU or MPU. If it will be MCU(like ARM7TDMI), which means Harvard Architecture (where Program code and RAM are physically different). Also internal RAM of a few KB and no Linux.
If it'll be MCU then it can have Linux OS, so theoretically it can have GDC ported.

Heh, I didn't realize that.  I actually build an fpga clone of atmega64 last year and would love to get D compiling on it, but other things tend to take priority.

It probably wouldn't be too hard (if you could get the cross compiler working) to stub out most of druntime and get it to compile.  The syntax improvement would alone would make it a great alternative to c.

"Alex_Dovhal" <alex_dovhal@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:jggjg1$2i7$3@digitalmars.com...
> "Daniel Murphy" <yebblies@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
>>There are 32 bit avrs.  Search for 'AVR32'.
> Thanks, I know :) But Arduino uses 8-bit.
> 

On 3 February 2012 15:37, Alex_Dovhal <alex_dovhal@yahoo.com> wrote:

> **
> >Andrea Fontana" <advmail@katamail.com> wrote:
> >In this case can we hope for a d frontend?
> That depends if it's MCU or MPU. If it will be MCU(like ARM7TDMI), which
> means Harvard Architecture (where Program code and RAM are physically
> different). Also internal RAM of a few KB and no Linux.
> If it'll be MCU then it can have Linux OS, so theoretically it can have
> GDC ported.
>

Eh? Why would GDC depend on linux at all? If you disable the GC (and
dependent language functionality), and manage to do something about the
horrible exe bloat, there's no reason it shouldn't be able to target
anything...
The obvious advantage over C is the syntax features. Clearly D as a
*language* shouldn't DEPEND on the druntime, other than some language
features that imply GC, like dynamic arrays/etc.

Is the toolchain not capable of producing a working exe without linking any library? Surely you can write a totally raw app with no libs at all? (assuming you avoid language features that make implicit druntime calls)

"Daniel Murphy" <yebblies@nospamgmail.com> wrote in message news:jggok5$b5i$1@digitalmars.com...
> The syntax improvement would alone would make it a great alternative to c.
>

Abolutely. I'd love to see a "Lean D" for such uses.

That's my point! Arduino use c++, dmd syntax will be a really good alternative. We just need a subset of druntime and we need to port arduino/wiring library...

Il giorno sab, 04/02/2012 alle 00.48 +1100, Daniel Murphy ha scritto:

> It probably wouldn't be too hard (if you could get the cross compiler working) to stub out most of druntime and get it to compile.  The syntax improvement would alone would make it a great alternative to c.