On Thursday, 11 September 2014 at 10:13:17 UTC, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 11:54:08 +0200
Daniel Kozak via Digitalmars-d <[email protected]>
wrote:
What? I don't see any problem with binary blob. With gcc it is
same I
need binary blob to be able to compile gcc from source. And if
I am
really scary of binary dmd compiler I can still use last C++
version
and compile it with gcc, then use this product to compile next
ddmd
and so on.
as i said -- good luck with it. D is not GCC (yet?), and GDC is
not a
part of GCC. it's very naive to assume that FOSS programmer
that wants
to try D will take last C++ version, then compiles it, than
compiles
next D version and so on. he will take either gdc from distro
repo (and
this will be old, if not ancient) just to find that it has no
shiny new
features the programmer just read about in NG, or will try to
build
HEAD and... and drop D, 'cause "if they make it so hard to
build their
compiler, they can play with it without me".
As a package maintainer I have no problem with chained building
of the compiler. Will take quite some time when its needed but
nothing critical.
There is a known issue that gcc release model is badly compatible
with one of DMD frontend (which causes certain headache with gdc
package maintenance) but it only means that gdc won't be
recommended for casual ddmd hacking and ldc will prevail for this
specific case. Don't see it as a big deal if building with gdc
still remains possible for maintainers.
