On 15 December 2016 at 18:43, Ilya Yaroshenko via
Digitalmars-d-announce <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 15 December 2016 at 14:40:55 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
>> On Thursday, 15 December 2016 at 14:14:41 UTC, Ilya Yaroshenko wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 15 December 2016 at 13:46:36 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, 15 December 2016 at 05:53:42 UTC, Ilya Yaroshenko wrote:
>>>>> Please, no :-(
>>>>> Mir needs betterC DMD FE
>>>> What for ?
>>>> Are you using the compiler frontend ?
>>>> And the frontend is not only using the betterC subset.
>>>> So you could not be using it right now.
>>> Yes, I hope I will be able to use ldc/gdc on new targets, which do not
>>> have DRuntime.
>> There is nothing wrong with dmd then.
>> Most of the code related to -betterC is in the glue code which means you
>> need to bug the ldc and gdc devs. Either way, if they don't have a working
>> druntime don't expect codegen to be valid for said target.
> If DMD FE is a betterC library, then DRuntime is not required to build a
> betterC D program with LDC/GCC, is no it?
I think I understand what you are trying to say, but I've had to
re-read it at least a dozen times because you' either grok very little
about how the internals are threaded together, or fully grok that but
invented your own words to describe them.
In either case, you're complaints are easily resolved by using a
cross-compiler. You don't need to building D programs for new targets
on the same CPU that will be running the program.
And I think this is the point that you are missing. Even though you
are alluding to wanting a D compiler that does not depend on druntime
(what you call betterC, which is at best a gross misunderstanding of
what betterC actually does).
To almost prove a point, there are 26 cross compilers for GDC in
Debian, almost all of which do not have druntime library support