On 11 January 2014 00:24, Manu <turkey...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11 January 2014 06:59, Iain Buclaw <ibuc...@gdcproject.org> wrote: >> >> On 10 January 2014 20:54, John Colvin <john.loughran.col...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 20:51:19 UTC, Dwhatever wrote: >> >> >> >> This might have been brought up before but I couldn't find any thread >> >> about this. As things has progressed I wonder if Digital Mars DMD >> >> should >> >> move over to use LLVM instead of its own code generation and compiler >> >> framework. >> >> >> >> As I see it with the small amount of contributors D-language has, DMD >> >> will >> >> never support anything beyond x86 as there are no resources for this. >> >> Also, >> >> why spend time on recreating the the code generation which has already >> >> been >> >> done with LLVM? This enables this community to focus on the language >> >> which >> >> is the most important part as well as supporting more and future >> >> processor >> >> targets. >> > >> > >> > This comes up regularly. It's already been done. Ldc *is* dmd with llvm >> > backend. Gdc is the same idea but with the gcc framework. >> >> Indeed. But naturally I'd suggest they move to GCC. ;-) > > > Is it possible that GDC will ever produce binaries that will link against > the microsoft libs without problems? > In my experience, GDC produces intrinsic calls to its own runtime all over > the place, and it's not compatible with the microsoft runtime. I also recall > library format mismatch, but that was a long time ago, and I think we > discussed it again since deciding that GDC is now using the same format as > VisualC in windows...? > Can GDC write PDB debuginfo into the objects (CV8 I think it is)?
As I understand, neither GCC nor LLVM are capable of producing PDB. Has Microsoft even release any documentation or code necessary to produce files in their PDB format?