This is extremely good news!

Where is LDC at with the D frontend at the moment?
Have Walter's numerous February fixes for C++ compatibility made their
way in yet?

Also, out of curiosity, has anyone looked at connecting the MS codegen
(C2.DLL) to LDC like MS do with Clang+C2 (Clang frontend w/ MS
codegen) that was released in VS2015 Update 1/2?
I suspect their C2.DLL connectivity code must be available(?), and
theoretically LDC could connect to it for codegen the same way Clang
does(?), and that would lead to 100% MS compatible binary and
debuginfo output.
ClangC2 produces binaries that are almost indistinguishable from MSVC
compiled binaries while debugging.

On 19 March 2016 at 23:23, kinke via Digitalmars-d-announce
<digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I'm proud to announce that MSVC is fully supported now for LDC trunk. Rainer
> Schuetze has implemented MSVC-compatible exception handling (available since
> brand-new LLVM 3.8) for LDC, so that we have fully working exception
> chaining now on Win64. Along the way, he also added 32-bit MSVC support and
> a TLS alignment bugfix for Windows < 8.1 (a Windows bug/wontfix!). It
> requires a bleeding edge LLVM though, as Rainer's work has uncovered a few
> LLVM bugs which didn't make it into 3.8 final.
> So a round of applause for Rainer and the LLVM devs, excellent job, thank
> you very much! Full PDB support for LLVM is also underway...
>
> CI testing with AppVeyor has been improved, so that the full test suite is
> run for both x86 and x64 MSVC targets. All tests pass except for 3 rather
> negligible issues (see
> https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/pull/1354#issuecomment-198572582 for
> details).
>
> The automatically updated GitHub release
> (http://wiki.dlang.org/Latest_LDC_binaries_for_Windows) now also includes a
> downloadable 32-bit LDC build.
>
> Wiki pages have been updated accordingly. Check out
> http://wiki.dlang.org/Building_and_hacking_LDC_on_Windows_using_MSVC if you
> want to start contributing too! Setting up the dev environment isn't that
> hard, I promise. :)

Reply via email to