On 13 January 2014 21:40, Kai Nacke <kai@redstar.de> wrote:

> On Monday, 13 January 2014 at 05:04:46 UTC, Manu wrote:
>
>> On 12 January 2014 00:35, Kai Nacke <kai@redstar.de> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You currently can't get the best of all worlds in a single compiler.
>>>
>>> LLVM does not support exceptions on native Win32. (Same is true for Win64
>>> but I hope to change this.) LLVM does not support CodeView debug symbols.
>>> Not in the format embedded in object file and not as PDB.
>>> In short, you loose the complete native Windows tool chain.
>>>
>>>
>> Is there any progress on any of these things BTW?
>> At some point, sooner or later, we're REALLY going to need a performance
>> compiler on Windows...
>>
>
> My patch for exceptions on Win64 is finally in review. I hope to commit it soon.
>
> The Google guys are adding COFF line number support right now.
>
> Regards,
> Kai


Oooohh yeah, this is exciting! :D
How about Win32? That's really important too, particularly since DMD
doesn't support Win32 :/

On Monday, 13 January 2014 at 12:47:09 UTC, Manu wrote:
> Oooohh yeah, this is exciting! :D
> How about Win32? That's really important too, particularly since DMD
> doesn't support Win32 :/

You mean the 32 bit MSVC toolchain? SEH support is unlikely to happen until that Borland patent expires.

David

On Monday, 13 January 2014 at 12:47:09 UTC, Manu wrote:
> On 13 January 2014 21:40, Kai Nacke <kai@redstar.de> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, 13 January 2014 at 05:04:46 UTC, Manu wrote:
>>
>>> On 12 January 2014 00:35, Kai Nacke <kai@redstar.de> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> You currently can't get the best of all worlds in a single compiler.
>>>>
>>>> LLVM does not support exceptions on native Win32. (Same is true for Win64
>>>> but I hope to change this.) LLVM does not support CodeView debug symbols.
>>>> Not in the format embedded in object file and not as PDB.
>>>> In short, you loose the complete native Windows tool chain.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Is there any progress on any of these things BTW?
>>> At some point, sooner or later, we're REALLY going to need a performance
>>> compiler on Windows...
>>>
>>
>> My patch for exceptions on Win64 is finally in review. I hope to commit it
>> soon.
>>
>> The Google guys are adding COFF line number support right now.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Kai
>
>
> Oooohh yeah, this is exciting! :D
> How about Win32? That's really important too, particularly since DMD
> doesn't support Win32 :/

Genuine question, I have never done any windows specific development: Why is Win32 a concern? Where is the overlap between requiring Win32 and high performance? Isn't 64 where it's at now?

Is it windows tablets/phones???

On Monday, 13 January 2014 at 12:59:53 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
> On Monday, 13 January 2014 at 12:47:09 UTC, Manu wrote:
>> On 13 January 2014 21:40, Kai Nacke <kai@redstar.de> wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, 13 January 2014 at 05:04:46 UTC, Manu wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12 January 2014 00:35, Kai Nacke <kai@redstar.de> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> You currently can't get the best of all worlds in a single compiler.
>>>>>
>>>>> LLVM does not support exceptions on native Win32. (Same is true for Win64
>>>>> but I hope to change this.) LLVM does not support CodeView debug symbols.
>>>>> Not in the format embedded in object file and not as PDB.
>>>>> In short, you loose the complete native Windows tool chain.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Is there any progress on any of these things BTW?
>>>> At some point, sooner or later, we're REALLY going to need a performance
>>>> compiler on Windows...
>>>>
>>>
>>> My patch for exceptions on Win64 is finally in review. I hope to commit it
>>> soon.
>>>
>>> The Google guys are adding COFF line number support right now.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Kai
>>
>>
>> Oooohh yeah, this is exciting! :D
>> How about Win32? That's really important too, particularly since DMD
>> doesn't support Win32 :/
>
> Genuine question, I have never done any windows specific development: Why is Win32 a concern? Where is the overlap between requiring Win32 and high performance? Isn't 64 where it's at now?
>
> Is it windows tablets/phones???

The 64 bit version of Windows API is still called Win32, there was no change like the Win16, Win32, Win32s days.

--
Paulo

On Monday, 13 January 2014 at 08:07:42 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> Right, but they are not merely using -- they are redistributing (and distributing derivative works).  The GPL places certain constraints here, I think we can all agree, but it can hardly be described as "intrusive"; there's no obligation to base one's work on GPL-licensed code.

If the whole topic is basing one project on another, as in the current discussion, than that's utterly besides the point.

Don't get me wrong, I'm rather sympathetic with the Free Software philosophy, and in fact I consider (A)GPL for all my projects. But if the fear of tainting a commercial product (such as the DMC backend) with code under an incompatible license is a concern, then "intrusive" is precisely the right word to describe GPL. There is a reason that many bigger companies outright ban it, whether that is ultimately a sane thing to do or not.

David