On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Brad Roberts <bra...@puremagic.com> wrote: >> 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)
Ah, ok. Thanks for clearing that up. So that means I probably should have been bugging the llvm-g++ guys instead of the clang guys. So what is llvm-g++ doing about exception handling and Windows support? Guess I'll have to go sign up for another mailing list now to find out... > 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). Got it. --bb
