This might have been brought up before but I couldn't find any thread about this. As things has progressed I wonder if Digital Mars DMD should move over to use LLVM instead of its own code generation and compiler framework.

As I see it with the small amount of contributors D-language has, DMD will never support anything beyond x86 as there are no resources for this. Also, why spend time on recreating the the code generation which has already been done with LLVM? This enables this community to focus on the language which is the most important part as well as supporting more and future processor targets.

On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 20:51:19 UTC, Dwhatever wrote:
> This might have been brought up before but I couldn't find any thread about this. As things has progressed I wonder if Digital Mars DMD should move over to use LLVM instead of its own code generation and compiler framework.
>
> As I see it with the small amount of contributors D-language has, DMD will never support anything beyond x86 as there are no resources for this. Also, why spend time on recreating the the code generation which has already been done with LLVM? This enables this community to focus on the language which is the most important part as well as supporting more and future processor targets.

This comes up regularly. It's already been done. Ldc *is* dmd with llvm backend. Gdc is the same idea but with the gcc framework.

On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 20:54:06 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
> On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 20:51:19 UTC, Dwhatever wrote:
>> This might have been brought up before but I couldn't find any thread about this. As things has progressed I wonder if Digital Mars DMD should move over to use LLVM instead of its own code generation and compiler framework.
>>
>> As I see it with the small amount of contributors D-language has, DMD will never support anything beyond x86 as there are no resources for this. Also, why spend time on recreating the the code generation which has already been done with LLVM? This enables this community to focus on the language which is the most important part as well as supporting more and future processor targets.
>
> This comes up regularly. It's already been done. Ldc *is* dmd with llvm backend. Gdc is the same idea but with the gcc framework.

also, the digital mars backend is very fast, which is actually good selling point for some use-cases where compilation speed is important.

On 10 January 2014 20:54, John Colvin <john.loughran.colvin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 20:51:19 UTC, Dwhatever wrote:
>>
>> This might have been brought up before but I couldn't find any thread about this. As things has progressed I wonder if Digital Mars DMD should move over to use LLVM instead of its own code generation and compiler framework.
>>
>> As I see it with the small amount of contributors D-language has, DMD will never support anything beyond x86 as there are no resources for this. Also, why spend time on recreating the the code generation which has already been done with LLVM? This enables this community to focus on the language which is the most important part as well as supporting more and future processor targets.
>
>
> This comes up regularly. It's already been done. Ldc *is* dmd with llvm backend. Gdc is the same idea but with the gcc framework.

Indeed. But naturally I'd suggest they move to GCC.  ;-)

Am 10.01.2014 21:51, schrieb Dwhatever:
> This might have been brought up before but I couldn't find any thread
> about this. As things has progressed I wonder if Digital Mars DMD should
> move over to use LLVM instead of its own code generation and compiler
> framework.
>
> As I see it with the small amount of contributors D-language has, DMD
> will never support anything beyond x86 as there are no resources for
> this. Also, why spend time on recreating the the code generation which
> has already been done with LLVM? This enables this community to focus on
> the language which is the most important part as well as supporting more
> and future processor targets.

Because Walter wouldn't be able to work on his current job any longer if he looks into other compiler vendors source code.

IP laws are always a complicated issue.

--
Paulo

On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 20:54:06 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
> On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 20:51:19 UTC, Dwhatever wrote:
>> This might have been brought up before but I couldn't find any thread about this. As things has progressed I wonder if Digital Mars DMD should move over to use LLVM instead of its own code generation and compiler framework.
>>
>> As I see it with the small amount of contributors D-language has, DMD will never support anything beyond x86 as there are no resources for this. Also, why spend time on recreating the the code generation which has already been done with LLVM? This enables this community to focus on the language which is the most important part as well as supporting more and future processor targets.
>
> This comes up regularly. It's already been done. Ldc *is* dmd with llvm backend. Gdc is the same idea but with the gcc framework.

Picking LLVM as the default development platform also means that it will tested in this environment instead of porting it all the time which introduce new bugs. The support is also different among the different backends, picking one would harmonize this and make it more complete.

On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 20:59:35 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> On 10 January 2014 20:54, John Colvin <john.loughran.colvin@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 20:51:19 UTC, Dwhatever wrote:
>>>
>>> This might have been brought up before but I couldn't find any thread
>>> about this. As things has progressed I wonder if Digital Mars DMD should
>>> move over to use LLVM instead of its own code generation and compiler
>>> framework.
>>>
>>> As I see it with the small amount of contributors D-language has, DMD will
>>> never support anything beyond x86 as there are no resources for this. Also,
>>> why spend time on recreating the the code generation which has already been
>>> done with LLVM? This enables this community to focus on the language which
>>> is the most important part as well as supporting more and future processor
>>> targets.
>>
>>
>> This comes up regularly. It's already been done. Ldc *is* dmd with llvm
>> backend. Gdc is the same idea but with the gcc framework.
>
> Indeed. But naturally I'd suggest they move to GCC.  ;-)

I see LLVM as a better choice because the license is less intrusive.

On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 21:00:47 UTC, Dwhatever wrote:
> On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 20:54:06 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
>> On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 20:51:19 UTC, Dwhatever wrote:
>>> This might have been brought up before but I couldn't find any thread about this. As things has progressed I wonder if Digital Mars DMD should move over to use LLVM instead of its own code generation and compiler framework.
>>>
>>> As I see it with the small amount of contributors D-language has, DMD will never support anything beyond x86 as there are no resources for this. Also, why spend time on recreating the the code generation which has already been done with LLVM? This enables this community to focus on the language which is the most important part as well as supporting more and future processor targets.
>>
>> This comes up regularly. It's already been done. Ldc *is* dmd with llvm backend. Gdc is the same idea but with the gcc framework.
>
> Picking LLVM as the default development platform also means that it will tested in this environment instead of porting it all the time which introduce new bugs. The support is also different among the different backends, picking one would harmonize this and make it more complete.


Hopefully, when the ddmd changeover happens (translating the frontend to D) the frontend will be truly shared between the different compilers.

On 10 January 2014 21:02, Dwhatever <not@real.com> wrote:
>
> I see LLVM as a better choice because the license is less intrusive.

That is a rather ignorant assumption.

On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 21:12:21 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> On 10 January 2014 21:02, Dwhatever <not@real.com> wrote:
>>
>> I see LLVM as a better choice because the license is less intrusive.
>
> That is a rather ignorant assumption.

I've got some pretty strong sympathies with the gpl, but really? In most practical circumstances gpl is on the more restrictive end of common open-source licences.