On 25 May 2015 at 18:14, ketmar via Digitalmars-d < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 May 2015 16:59:48 +0200, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote: > > > On 25 May 2015 09:45, "ketmar via Digitalmars-d" < > > digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, 25 May 2015 00:24:26 +0200, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d > >> wrote: > >> > >> > I find the situation being like at university looking for grants or > >> > funding, and constantly being told. 'Oh yes, it is important what > >> > you are doing, and you must keep doing it as it is pivotal for future > >> > success. But no, we won't help you.' > >> > >> that's 'cause GCC is untameable beast for average Joe like me, for > >> example. ;-) > > > > Both have equal complexity, so that is no excuse. DMD just operates at > > a lower level, on a smaller scale, and forces you to think about the > > effect on generated object code. > > i'm afraid that they doesn't have equal complexity. i can read DMD code > (ok, even backend, it's hard, but doable), but i cannot read GCC backend > code in the same amount of time. and there are alot more things i have to > know to understand GDC. i made some trivial fixes in DMD backend, yet i > don't even know where to start to understand at least *something* in GCC. Yes, they do. The key difference is that GCC doesn't require you to delve into it's backend, as a language implementer, you only need to think of how the code should be represented in it's tree language (ie: http://icps.u-strasbg.fr/~pop/gcc-ast.html) - Because of this, I never need to look at assembly dumps to understand what is going on, only tree dumps, which are handily outputted in a C-style format with -fdump-tree-original=stdout.