Re: LLVM progress

2013-09-10 Thread Flamaros
On Tuesday, 10 September 2013 at 08:36:21 UTC, Chris wrote: On Monday, 9 September 2013 at 15:56:17 UTC, Flamaros wrote: On Monday, 9 September 2013 at 10:29:56 UTC, Chris wrote: Not to mention the importance of ARM support. It's an evidence that is a major target today. :-) I work only on A

Re: LLVM progress

2013-09-10 Thread Chris
On Monday, 9 September 2013 at 15:56:17 UTC, Flamaros wrote: On Monday, 9 September 2013 at 10:29:56 UTC, Chris wrote: Not to mention the importance of ARM support. It's an evidence that is a major target today. :-) I work only on ARM compatible application for my day job, that why DQuick is

Re: LLVM progress

2013-09-09 Thread Flamaros
On Monday, 9 September 2013 at 10:29:56 UTC, Chris wrote: Not to mention the importance of ARM support. It's an evidence that is a major target today. :-) I work only on ARM compatible application for my day job, that why DQuick is tough to be easy to port those devices.

Re: LLVM progress

2013-09-09 Thread Manu
On 7 September 2013 23:20, Flamaros wrote: > I read an interesting news about LLVM : > http://www.phoronix.com/scan.**php?page=news_item&px=MTQ1NjI > > It's certainly a great things for ldc too. > > Is there a hope to see ldc as the main

Re: LLVM progress

2013-09-09 Thread Chris
Not to mention the importance of ARM support.

Re: LLVM progress

2013-09-07 Thread Flamaros
On Saturday, 7 September 2013 at 19:35:47 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: On Sat, 2013-09-07 at 10:08 -0700, Walter Bright wrote: […] Having 3 different D compilers with different strengths and weaknesses spurs improvements in all of them. When I was at GoingNative2013, it was pretty obvious to me th

Re: LLVM progress

2013-09-07 Thread Russel Winder
On Sat, 2013-09-07 at 10:08 -0700, Walter Bright wrote: […] > Having 3 different D compilers with different strengths and weaknesses spurs > improvements in all of them. When I was at GoingNative2013, it was pretty > obvious to me that the playful and friendly competition between gcc, clang, > a

Re: LLVM progress

2013-09-07 Thread Walter Bright
On 9/7/2013 9:42 AM, Benjamin Thaut wrote: I doubt that LDC has compile times that are 3-5 times longer then those of DMD (even in debug without optimization). D advertises with short compile times, so unless LDC improves I don't see this happening. And thats only one of the points. Having 3

Re: LLVM progress

2013-09-07 Thread Benjamin Thaut
Am 07.09.2013 15:20, schrieb Flamaros: I read an interesting news about LLVM : http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTQ1NjI It's certainly a great things for ldc too. Is there a hope to see ldc as the main D compiler if it's full featured under Windows? I doubt that LDC has comp

LLVM progress

2013-09-07 Thread Flamaros
I read an interesting news about LLVM : http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTQ1NjI It's certainly a great things for ldc too. Is there a hope to see ldc as the main D compiler if it's full featured under Windows?