Steven Schveighoffer wrote: >> No, the problem is that it potentially makes him give away the rights >> to the dmd backend. Which I think he can't legally do, even if he >> wanted to. > > I don't think there is any danger of this, it would be well established > that Walter wrote all his proprietary backend code before he viewed gcc > source. The danger is for future code he writes.
I can see the concern here, certainly. > Personally, I am not too concerned about the backend performance, it's > not critical to D at this time. Someone, somewhere, will make this > better, and then any code written in D magically gets faster :) We're > talking about decreasing the constant for the D compiler complexity, not > decreasing the complexity. Code built with dmd runs plenty fast for me > (save the GC performance, maybe we can focus on that first?). I'm looking forward to seeing gdc released for D2 -- I think it will be interesting to compare. From what I understand part of the motivation for reawakening it was a comparison of performance of code generated by llvm and gcc respectively. Part of my original issue over speed was that I'd heard D described as 'performance already as good as C++'. So, I was coming with expectations about what I'd be able to achieve ... :-)
