In windows if you want use some lib that is not provide dynamic dll support, you need compile it with dmc. In this case your need deal a lot problem with lack of c head file . if there is a vc++ version backend will be big help for a lot of people who is not familiarity with c/c++ .
2010/6/22 Eldar Insafutdinov <e.insafutdi...@gmail.com> > == Quote from dsimcha (dsim...@yahoo.com)'s article > > What is the long-term plan for the current DMD backend? I've noticed the > > first steps towards 64-bit support were just checked in today (excitement > to > > the extreme). However, the backend is under such a restrictive license > (which > > I understand Walter is not free to change) that it has a "bus factor" of > 1. > > If Walter were to stop maintaining it, noone else would be able to, if I > > understand the licensing issues correctly. > > Is there a chance of these licensing issues being cleared up so that the > > backend can be released under a more permissive license? If not, while I > > understand Walter's decision to use a backend he was familiar with in the > > beginning, it seems like we should abandon such a heavily encumbered > backend > > now that it needs serious work. > > Hi > > I agree with what Sean says. Even more, DMD backend is good for development > process, because it is very fast as opposed to more popular ones like llvm > or gcc. > What really worries me is what is going to happen on Windows. We have the > burden > which is old file format and optlink. There are still big problems with the > linker, it has random problems on big projects, building them with debug > info is > even more problematic. As far as I understood that linker is being > rewritten to C, > but the process is very slow. It may take years to complete the port, and > then to > make it 64bit capable, isn't it? All existing problems would be propagated > further. I would suggest(again and again) to add a new Windows backend > targeting > MinGW or MSVC toolchain. It should not necessarily replace the existing > one, but > people would at least have freedom and there wouldn't be situation that you > are > stuck in development when linker fails. Also those toolchain support 64bit, > so it > is another advantage. For those who still wants digital mars toolchain - > there > will be an old one. Remembering that it took Walter about 6 weeks to > implement > MacOS backend, that doesn't seem too bad. In the end, Windows is the most > popular > OS despite our personal preferences, and it's worth spending some time for > it. > > Cheers >