On Sep 15, 2013 7:55 AM, "Nick Sabalausky" < [email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 20:04:10 +0100 > Iain Buclaw <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 14 September 2013 19:47, Nick Sabalausky > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 13:14:09 +0200 > > > Joseph Rushton Wakeling <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > >> Theoretically, shouldn't GDC be able to support just about any > > >> architecture for which GCC has a backend? The runtime and Phobos > > >> need porting, but the core language itself should be usable, no? > > > > > > And doesn't LLVM have a way to compile D *to* C? > > > > > > > If it did, there would be quite a few bits missing as much of D can > > not be easily represented in C. > > > > Maybe, but as I recall, it was actually the low-level LLVM bytecode > that gets translated to C, not the higher-level constructs. > > Related: > http://d.hatena.ne.jp/ABA/20130331#p1 > > Although I guess that's using "LLVM IR -> JS", not "LLVM IR -> C". But > I could swear I've seen a "LLVM IR -> C" before... >
Doesn't give the output of the final result, which is disappointing. Also, translation to English is poor, but I think the blog also says that translating D classes don't work, which is what I'd expect in D -> C translation too. Regards -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
