June 23, 2004 Re: C backend for D? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Enzo Michelangeli | I intended to do it myself, but dropped it due to lack of time. It would not be a "first step" in porting to other platforms any longer, since David Friedman has already made a compiler with GCC backend from DMD source. http://home.earthlink.net/~dvdfrdmn/d/ D is not completely expressable in ANSI-C, but it can be done in C with some compiler-dependent extensions, conserning exception handling so that it can cooperate with standard mechanisms of the operating system. On embedded systems, even more ANSI-like C can be used. -eye Enzo Michelangeli schrieb: > Hi, > > I just discovered D, and from what I can see it's pretty close to my > "dream language". Has anybody ever suggested to create a compiler backend > producing ANSI C source code, as e.g. SmartEiffel does for Eiffel > programs? This would probably affect the performances negatively, but it > would represent a useful first step to port the language to other > platforms. > > TIA -- > > Enzo > > |
June 23, 2004 ot: c rtl (was Re: C backend for D?) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter | "Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> escribió en el mensaje news:cbatqt$1fsp$1@digitaldaemon.com | There's nothing hard about what the Intel optimizer is doing in theory, it | just takes a lot of careful implementation work. The Intel team has some | obvious advantages over me: | | 1) They don't have to spend years writing and debugging a C++ front end. | They just bought one. | | 2) They have access to the engineers who designed the chip to get better | info on what code to generate. | | 3) They don't have to write a runtime library. | Sorry to ask, but why is that? (3) | If I could only work on the optimizer/code generator, I could match what | they do. | | But to answer the original question, yes, there are many possible D-specific | optimizations that would not be done by a C back end. ----------------------- Carlos Santander Bernal |
June 24, 2004 Re: c rtl (was Re: C backend for D?) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Carlos Santander B. | "Carlos Santander B." <carlos8294@msn.com> wrote in message news:cbd4ob$1umu$1@digitaldaemon.com... > "Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> escribió en el mensaje > news:cbatqt$1fsp$1@digitaldaemon.com > | There's nothing hard about what the Intel optimizer is doing in theory, it > | just takes a lot of careful implementation work. The Intel team has some > | obvious advantages over me: > | > | 1) They don't have to spend years writing and debugging a C++ front end. > | They just bought one. > | > | 2) They have access to the engineers who designed the chip to get better > | info on what code to generate. > | > | 3) They don't have to write a runtime library. > | > > Sorry to ask, but why is that? (3) They use MS's on Win32, and GCC's on Linux |
June 24, 2004 Re: c rtl (was Re: C backend for D?) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Matthew | "Matthew" <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> escribió en el mensaje news:cbd696$20o4$1@digitaldaemon.com | "Carlos Santander B." <carlos8294@msn.com> wrote in message | news:cbd4ob$1umu$1@digitaldaemon.com... || "Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> escribió en el mensaje || news:cbatqt$1fsp$1@digitaldaemon.com ||| There's nothing hard about what the Intel optimizer is doing in theory, it ||| just takes a lot of careful implementation work. The Intel team has some ||| obvious advantages over me: ||| ||| 1) They don't have to spend years writing and debugging a C++ front end. ||| They just bought one. ||| ||| 2) They have access to the engineers who designed the chip to get better ||| info on what code to generate. ||| ||| 3) They don't have to write a runtime library. ||| || || Sorry to ask, but why is that? (3) | | They use MS's on Win32, and GCC's on Linux Well, outsourcing is the way to go... lol! Thanks! ----------------------- Carlos Santander Bernal |
June 24, 2004 Re: c rtl (was Re: C backend for D?) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Carlos Santander B. | Carlos Santander B. wrote:
> "Matthew" <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> escribió en el mensaje
> news:cbd696$20o4$1@digitaldaemon.com
> | "Carlos Santander B." <carlos8294@msn.com> wrote in message
> | news:cbd4ob$1umu$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> || "Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> escribió en el mensaje
> || news:cbatqt$1fsp$1@digitaldaemon.com
> ||| There's nothing hard about what the Intel optimizer is doing in theory,
> it
> ||| just takes a lot of careful implementation work. The Intel team has some
> ||| obvious advantages over me:
> |||
> ||| 1) They don't have to spend years writing and debugging a C++ front end.
> ||| They just bought one.
> |||
> ||| 2) They have access to the engineers who designed the chip to get better
> ||| info on what code to generate.
> |||
> ||| 3) They don't have to write a runtime library.
> |||
> ||
> || Sorry to ask, but why is that? (3)
> |
> | They use MS's on Win32, and GCC's on Linux
>
> Well, outsourcing is the way to go... lol!
> Thanks!
Indeed. "MinGW" GCC uses MS's on Win32 too :-)
Cheers,
Sigbjørn Lund Olsen
|
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation