On Friday, 28 November 2014 at 20:14:07 UTC, LeakingAntonovPlane
wrote:
DDMD, bootstraping.
LDC and GDC are not written in D.
Pretty sure that DDMD project is not a translation of the backend
and is only the shared front end source code.
On Friday, 28 November 2014 at 19:59:40 UTC, Xinok wrote:
Given that we have GDC with the GCC backend and LDC with the
LLVM backend, what are the benefits of keeping the DMD compiler
backend? It seems to me that GCC and LLVM are far more
developed and better supported by their respective
Chris:
As others have said already, the reasons why I use dmd are:
Walter has developed the back-end of DMD and he wants to keep
using it no matter what. But I love the very small compilation
time of dmd sources.
Bye,
bearophile
On Tuesday, 2 December 2014 at 10:37:18 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Chris:
As others have said already, the reasons why I use dmd are:
Walter has developed the back-end of DMD and he wants to keep
using it no matter what. But I love the very small compilation
time of dmd sources.
Bye,
It's only words.
If we speak about LDC it can compile fast in debug mode with
performance average to DMD's backend but with much great
performance in release mode thanks to vectorization and other
techniques.
Also LDC thanks to LLVM supports X86, X86-64, PowerPC,
PowerPC-64, ARM, Thumb,
On Tuesday, 2 December 2014 at 10:57:20 UTC, Temtaime wrote:
It's only words.
If we speak about LDC it can compile fast in debug mode with
performance average to DMD's backend but with much great
performance in release mode thanks to vectorization and other
techniques.
Also LDC thanks to LLVM
Setting up LLVM infrastructure is only needed when you is a LDC
developer.
I think for ordinary users it's not their business.
On Sunday, 30 November 2014 at 02:07:16 UTC, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2014 22:57:52 -0300
Ary Borenszweig via Digitalmars-d-learn
digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com wrote:
besides, i don't want to use anything llvm-related.
Why not?
let's say that there is some
On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 01:48:53 +
MachineCode via Digitalmars-d-learn digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com
wrote:
On Sunday, 30 November 2014 at 02:07:16 UTC, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2014 22:57:52 -0300
Ary Borenszweig via Digitalmars-d-learn
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 8:03 AM, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-learn
digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com wrote:
that is exactly the reason i'm against LLVM: it's license. i believe
that compiler and compiler construction tools must be [L]GPLed or
proprietary, but not MITed/BSDLed/SIMILARed.
Heh --
On Wed, 3 Dec 2014 08:14:53 +0530
Shriramana Sharma via Digitalmars-d-learn
digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com wrote:
Heh -- fine for whatever compiler tools *you* create, but if someone
else creates it, and is willing to distribute it under a more liberal
license, why should you find it
On Friday, 28 November 2014 at 19:59:40 UTC, Xinok wrote:
Given that we have GDC with the GCC backend and LDC with the
LLVM backend, what are the benefits of keeping the DMD compiler
backend? It seems to me that GCC and LLVM are far more
developed and better supported by their respective
MachineCode:
I tried to use others compilers which use gcc/llvm
as backend where I had to do alot of workaround just to make it
working on Windows that I just gave up.
I using ldc2 on Windows with no problems, and the installation is
very easy, just download two archives and unpack them in
On Sunday, 30 November 2014 at 22:15:44 UTC, bearophile wrote:
MachineCode:
I tried to use others compilers which use gcc/llvm
as backend where I had to do alot of workaround just to make it
working on Windows that I just gave up.
I using ldc2 on Windows with no problems, and the
On Friday, 28 November 2014 at 19:59:40 UTC, Xinok wrote:
Given that we have GDC with the GCC backend and LDC with the
LLVM backend, what are the benefits of keeping the DMD compiler
backend? It seems to me that GCC and LLVM are far more
developed and better supported by their respective
On Sat, 29 Nov 2014 15:37:32 +
Joakim via Digitalmars-d-learn digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com
wrote:
build time for the whole DMD compiler with standard library,
using
G++: 100 seconds. yea, no kidding.
gdc: i don't even want to think about that, way t long.
ldc: not that
On 11/29/14, 3:48 PM, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2014 15:37:32 +
Joakim via Digitalmars-d-learn digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com
wrote:
build time for the whole DMD compiler with standard library,
using
G++: 100 seconds. yea, no kidding.
gdc: i don't even want
On Sat, 29 Nov 2014 22:57:52 -0300
Ary Borenszweig via Digitalmars-d-learn
digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com wrote:
besides, i don't want to use anything llvm-related.
Why not?
let's say that there is some ideological reasons.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Given that we have GDC with the GCC backend and LDC with the LLVM
backend, what are the benefits of keeping the DMD compiler
backend? It seems to me that GCC and LLVM are far more developed
and better supported by their respective communities. They have
superior optimizers and are better
On Fri, 28 Nov 2014 19:59:39 +
Xinok via Digitalmars-d-learn digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com wrote:
Given that we have GDC with the GCC backend and LDC with the LLVM
backend, what are the benefits of keeping the DMD compiler
backend?
build time for the whole DMD compiler with standard
On Friday, 28 November 2014 at 19:59:40 UTC, Xinok wrote:
Given that we have GDC with the GCC backend and LDC with the
LLVM backend, what are the benefits of keeping the DMD compiler
backend? It seems to me that GCC and LLVM are far more
developed and better supported by their respective
21 matches
Mail list logo
