"spir" <denis.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mailman.3141.1301915290.4748.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... > On 04/04/2011 07:26 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> As far as LDC2, LLVM's uselessness on windows is a bit of a showstopper >> for >> many people. And the LLVM project doesn't appear to be interested in >> doing >> much about it. (Note I didn't say they *aren't* interested in getting it >> working. That's not something I could even pretend to know. I'm just >> saying >> that, at the very least, it *looks* like they don't care. And, for better >> or >> worse, perception does count for a lot.) > > Yop, too bad. Else, LLVM could be the one target of choice for many PL's > "reference" implementation. I'd like to know rationales. >
AIUI, the standard explanation is that exception support on Windows requires SEH which is covered by a patent owned by Borland/Microsoft. But I have a hard time buying that explanation because non-MS compilers like GCC and DMC support exceptions on windows just fine - so why not LLVM, too? I hate to make accusations of impropriety without proper evidence, but Apple is known to be a major backer of LLVM. Obviously that doesn't prove anything at all, but it wouldn't surprise me if that at least had *something* to do with it (although specifically *what*, I could only speculate).
