On 12 January 2014 00:35, Kai Nacke <[email protected]> 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... With LDC, you can use other platforms. E.g. it runs on Linux/PPC64. But you > can't ignore the backend because it has bugs and is incomplete. > > E.g. on Linux/ARM I have a linker error when I enable generation of debug > symbols. LLVM for arm-apple-darwin does not support TLS. LLVM for PPC > supports only 2 of the 4 TLS models. In addition, the assembler for > PPC/PPC64 does not support all instructions I need for std.math. > > Regards, > Kai >
