> Sounds to me like LDC is already ahead of clang's C++. > I actually asked the same question over on the list "could it be that > LDC is already the most advanced compiler availble on the LLVM > platform?" One guy answered "No, there's llvm-g++", but another guy > answered "it depends on whether you count llvm-g++ as an LLVM-based > compiler or not". I'm not sure what llvm-g++ is, but from that I'm > guessing maybe it's an llvm front end with a g++ back-end. In which > case, I wouldn't really count it. > > But there are a lot of LLVM projects listed here: > http://llvm.org/ProjectsWithLLVM/ > Maybe one of those is more advanced than LDC, not that "advanced" has > a very specific meaning anyway. > > LDC should definitely be on that list, though. > > --bb
llvm-gcc and -g++ are the gcc/g++ front ends bolted onto the llvm middle/backends. So in that respect, almost identical to dmd's fe bolted onto llvm. The major difference being that llvm-gcc/g++ are complete (as far as gcc and llvm are complete) There used to be a C backend to llvm, but that was abandoned a year or two ago, if I recall correctly. As far as I know, there's never been a c++ backend, nor any use of gcc's backends with llvm. Since LDC isn't re-implementing the frontend of d, just splicing dmd's onto llvm and that clang is still implementing both c and c++, yes, ldc is further along in some ways than clang is. But it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison (please pardon the pun). Later, Brad
