On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 01:34:39PM +0100, Trass3r wrote: > On Thursday, 26 January 2012 at 11:46:19 UTC, sami wrote: > >my question is if there thing i can do with dmd only and visa > >versa? > >what the feature of one of them over the other? > >what the different between them in term of inline assembly, > >performance, platform and bugs? > > They share the frontend, i.e. language support is pretty much the > same. > dmd's backend is limited both in terms of performance and platform > support (x86 only), but it compiles D code faster. > gdc inherits gcc's sophisticated optimizer capabilities, but may > have unique bugs in its glue code.
gdc also inherits gcc's multiplatform support, together with platform specific optimizations common to all gcc-based compilers. > On Windoze gdc is really preferable cause the dmd/dmc toolchain is > just crap and doesn't support x64 at all. Building gdc yourself is > PITA on Win though. Building gcc in general is a pain. It's just a little less painful on *nix systems, but still painful. > On Linux the difference isn't that big. Hmm, maybe somebody should write a D compiler in D. That will prove that D is a worthwhile language. ;-) You can then bootstrap it by compiling it with gdc, dmd, or whatever you wish, then recompile it with itself (gcc-style). All sorts of neat stuff you can do there. T -- Prosperity breeds contempt, and poverty breeds consent. -- Suck.com
