On 10/05/12 03:14, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
If nothing else, because Walter would be unable to work on it. He avoids looking at the source for any other compilers, because doing so could cause him legal issues when working on dmd/dmc's backend, which he does professionally. And given that Walter has worked on the backend for over 20 years, I can't imagine that he's going to be all that excited at the prospect of throwing it away in favor of another one.
Is that an issue for LLVM, which is BSD-licensed? I will understand if the answer is, "I don't care, I don't even want to risk it."
Once the front-end has stabilized (and it's getting there), it should become a non-issue, because then even if gdc and ldc are a version or two behind, it won't affect anywhere near as much (it will also likely become easier at that point for the gdc and ldc devs to keep them up-to-date).
Yes, I agree. That's why I suggested as an alternative trying to synchronize releases of DMD, GDC and LDC so that they are always feature-equivalent, and endorsing all 3 as official implementations of the reference standard.
