www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

D.gnu - 2.066 announce?

reply ketmar <ketmar ketmar.no-ip.org> writes:
i see that 2.066.1 is landed in GDC (heh, that was sudden! had to fix=20
almost all my private patches...). is it still in testing stage, or it's=20
already fully usable? and if it's usable, i believe that it worth=20
announcing in "D.announce" NG.=
Jan 23 2015
parent reply Johannes Pfau <nospam example.com> writes:
Am Sat, 24 Jan 2015 06:32:57 +0000 (UTC)
schrieb ketmar <ketmar ketmar.no-ip.org>:

 i see that 2.066.1 is landed in GDC (heh, that was sudden! had to fix 
 almost all my private patches...). is it still in testing stage, or
 it's already fully usable? and if it's usable, i believe that it
 worth announcing in "D.announce" NG.
I'd say testing stage. I'm still reducing one ARM codegen bug ;-)
Jan 24 2015
parent reply "Iain Buclaw via D.gnu" <d.gnu puremagic.com> writes:
On 24 Jan 2015 08:40, "Johannes Pfau via D.gnu" <d.gnu puremagic.com> wrote:
 Am Sat, 24 Jan 2015 06:32:57 +0000 (UTC)
 schrieb ketmar <ketmar ketmar.no-ip.org>:

 i see that 2.066.1 is landed in GDC (heh, that was sudden! had to fix
 almost all my private patches...). is it still in testing stage, or
 it's already fully usable? and if it's usable, i believe that it
 worth announcing in "D.announce" NG.
I'd say testing stage. I'm still reducing one ARM codegen bug ;-)
Agreed. I'd say it's only released when it hits branch. Now it's in master, it allows people to test out their projects with it. I also need to write up a formal changelog of what's gone in, what hasn't, and what has been backported from 2.067. Iain.
Jan 24 2015
next sibling parent reply "Stefan Frijters" <sfrijters gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 24 January 2015 at 08:47:33 UTC, Iain Buclaw via 
D.gnu wrote:
 On 24 Jan 2015 08:40, "Johannes Pfau via D.gnu" 
 <d.gnu puremagic.com> wrote:
 Am Sat, 24 Jan 2015 06:32:57 +0000 (UTC)
 schrieb ketmar <ketmar ketmar.no-ip.org>:

 i see that 2.066.1 is landed in GDC (heh, that was sudden! 
 had to fix
 almost all my private patches...). is it still in testing 
 stage, or
 it's already fully usable? and if it's usable, i believe 
 that it
 worth announcing in "D.announce" NG.
I'd say testing stage. I'm still reducing one ARM codegen bug ;-)
Agreed. I'd say it's only released when it hits branch. Now it's in master, it allows people to test out their projects with it. I also need to write up a formal changelog of what's gone in, what hasn't, and what has been backported from 2.067. Iain.
I'm very much looking forward to this release: my code depends heavily on the 2.066 multidimensional array syntax and I'm eager to find out if GDC can give me some extra performance. As for testing the current state of GDC: is there a way to cleanly add this testing stage version to my build matrix on Travis CI, e.g. is a binary available somewhere? Stefan
Jan 24 2015
parent "Iain Buclaw via D.gnu" <d.gnu puremagic.com> writes:
On 24 Jan 2015 10:20, "Stefan Frijters via D.gnu" <d.gnu puremagic.com>
wrote:
 On Saturday, 24 January 2015 at 08:47:33 UTC, Iain Buclaw via D.gnu wrote:
 On 24 Jan 2015 08:40, "Johannes Pfau via D.gnu" <d.gnu puremagic.com>
wrote:
 Am Sat, 24 Jan 2015 06:32:57 +0000 (UTC)
 schrieb ketmar <ketmar ketmar.no-ip.org>:

 i see that 2.066.1 is landed in GDC (heh, that was sudden! > had to
fix
 almost all my private patches...). is it still in testing > stage, or
 it's already fully usable? and if it's usable, i believe > that it
 worth announcing in "D.announce" NG.
I'd say testing stage. I'm still reducing one ARM codegen bug ;-)
Agreed. I'd say it's only released when it hits branch. Now it's in master, it allows people to test out their projects with it. I also need to write up a formal changelog of what's gone in, what
hasn't,
 and what has been backported from 2.067.

 Iain.
I'm very much looking forward to this release: my code depends heavily on
the 2.066 multidimensional array syntax and I'm eager to find out if GDC can give me some extra performance.
 As for testing the current state of GDC: is there a way to cleanly add
this testing stage version to my build matrix on Travis CI, e.g. is a binary available somewhere?
 Stefan
I will be updating docker images this weekend. https://github.com/ibuclaw/docker-gdc
Jan 24 2015
prev sibling parent reply ketmar <ketmar ketmar.no-ip.org> writes:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 08:47:25 +0000, Iain Buclaw via D.gnu wrote:

 On 24 Jan 2015 08:40, "Johannes Pfau via D.gnu" <d.gnu puremagic.com>
 wrote:
 Am Sat, 24 Jan 2015 06:32:57 +0000 (UTC)
 schrieb ketmar <ketmar ketmar.no-ip.org>:

 i see that 2.066.1 is landed in GDC (heh, that was sudden! had to fix
 almost all my private patches...). is it still in testing stage, or
 it's already fully usable? and if it's usable, i believe that it
 worth announcing in "D.announce" NG.
I'd say testing stage. I'm still reducing one ARM codegen bug ;-)
=20 Agreed. I'd say it's only released when it hits branch. Now it's in master, it allows people to test out their projects with it.
but it is in branch! ;-) i'm building my compiler from 'gdc-4.9' branch,=20 and it answers "2066L" on `pragma(msg, __VERSION__);`. that was the=20 reason for my question in the first place. p.s. please, don't revert it! ;-)=
Jan 24 2015
parent reply "Iain Buclaw via D.gnu" <d.gnu puremagic.com> writes:
On 24 January 2015 at 11:08, ketmar via D.gnu <d.gnu puremagic.com> wrote:
 On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 08:47:25 +0000, Iain Buclaw via D.gnu wrote:

 On 24 Jan 2015 08:40, "Johannes Pfau via D.gnu" <d.gnu puremagic.com>
 wrote:
 Am Sat, 24 Jan 2015 06:32:57 +0000 (UTC)
 schrieb ketmar <ketmar ketmar.no-ip.org>:

 i see that 2.066.1 is landed in GDC (heh, that was sudden! had to fix
 almost all my private patches...). is it still in testing stage, or
 it's already fully usable? and if it's usable, i believe that it
 worth announcing in "D.announce" NG.
I'd say testing stage. I'm still reducing one ARM codegen bug ;-)
Agreed. I'd say it's only released when it hits branch. Now it's in master, it allows people to test out their projects with it.
but it is in branch! ;-) i'm building my compiler from 'gdc-4.9' branch, and it answers "2066L" on `pragma(msg, __VERSION__);`. that was the reason for my question in the first place. p.s. please, don't revert it! ;-)
No one told me this. :o) Iain.
Jan 24 2015
parent reply Johannes Pfau <nospam example.com> writes:
Am Sat, 24 Jan 2015 11:56:31 +0000
schrieb "Iain Buclaw via D.gnu" <d.gnu puremagic.com>:

 On 24 January 2015 at 11:08, ketmar via D.gnu <d.gnu puremagic.com>
 wrote:
 On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 08:47:25 +0000, Iain Buclaw via D.gnu wrote:

 On 24 Jan 2015 08:40, "Johannes Pfau via D.gnu"
 <d.gnu puremagic.com> wrote:
 Am Sat, 24 Jan 2015 06:32:57 +0000 (UTC)
 schrieb ketmar <ketmar ketmar.no-ip.org>:

 i see that 2.066.1 is landed in GDC (heh, that was sudden! had
 to fix almost all my private patches...). is it still in
 testing stage, or it's already fully usable? and if it's
 usable, i believe that it worth announcing in "D.announce" NG.
I'd say testing stage. I'm still reducing one ARM codegen bug ;-)
Agreed. I'd say it's only released when it hits branch. Now it's in master, it allows people to test out their projects with it.
but it is in branch! ;-) i'm building my compiler from 'gdc-4.9' branch, and it answers "2066L" on `pragma(msg, __VERSION__);`. that was the reason for my question in the first place. p.s. please, don't revert it! ;-)
No one told me this. :o) Iain.
Sorry, I already updated the branches as I needed a 4.9.2 backport for testing. I should probably think twice about this next time :-)
Jan 24 2015
next sibling parent ketmar <ketmar ketmar.no-ip.org> writes:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 13:33:50 +0100, Johannes Pfau wrote:

 Sorry, I already updated the branches as I needed a 4.9.2 backport for
 testing. I should probably think twice about this next time :-)
i think that it was the right move. this way people who are using gcc 4.9=20 (me ;-) can test it too. not that i'm doing compiler unittests or so, but=20 i'm working on my project with gdc, so there is a small chance to catch=20 some bugs anyway.=
Jan 24 2015
prev sibling parent reply "Iain Buclaw via D.gnu" <d.gnu puremagic.com> writes:
On 24 January 2015 at 12:33, Johannes Pfau via D.gnu
<d.gnu puremagic.com> wrote:
 Am Sat, 24 Jan 2015 11:56:31 +0000
 schrieb "Iain Buclaw via D.gnu" <d.gnu puremagic.com>:

 On 24 January 2015 at 11:08, ketmar via D.gnu <d.gnu puremagic.com>
 wrote:
 On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 08:47:25 +0000, Iain Buclaw via D.gnu wrote:

 On 24 Jan 2015 08:40, "Johannes Pfau via D.gnu"
 <d.gnu puremagic.com> wrote:
 Am Sat, 24 Jan 2015 06:32:57 +0000 (UTC)
 schrieb ketmar <ketmar ketmar.no-ip.org>:

 i see that 2.066.1 is landed in GDC (heh, that was sudden! had
 to fix almost all my private patches...). is it still in
 testing stage, or it's already fully usable? and if it's
 usable, i believe that it worth announcing in "D.announce" NG.
I'd say testing stage. I'm still reducing one ARM codegen bug ;-)
Agreed. I'd say it's only released when it hits branch. Now it's in master, it allows people to test out their projects with it.
but it is in branch! ;-) i'm building my compiler from 'gdc-4.9' branch, and it answers "2066L" on `pragma(msg, __VERSION__);`. that was the reason for my question in the first place. p.s. please, don't revert it! ;-)
No one told me this. :o) Iain.
Sorry, I already updated the branches as I needed a 4.9.2 backport for testing. I should probably think twice about this next time :-)
Nah - I shouldn't have to have my finger dipped in everything. It's just given me a list of more things to update today. Iain
Jan 24 2015
parent reply ketmar <ketmar ketmar.no-ip.org> writes:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 12:48:27 +0000, Iain Buclaw via D.gnu wrote:

 Sorry, I already updated the branches as I needed a 4.9.2 backport for
 testing. I should probably think twice about this next time :-)
=20 Nah - I shouldn't have to have my finger dipped in everything. It's just given me a list of more things to update today.
off: Iain (or Johannes), can you made gcc.builtin primitives ` nogc`,=20 please? i completely lost in the code that generates 'em, but it blocks=20 making "core.atomic" ` nogc`, and i can't build my project anymore. it's=20 ok for me to manually patch "core.atomic", but sadly, i can't do this=20 with gdc code.=
Jan 24 2015
parent reply Johannes Pfau <nospam example.com> writes:
Am Sat, 24 Jan 2015 13:07:43 +0000 (UTC)
schrieb ketmar <ketmar ketmar.no-ip.org>:

 On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 12:48:27 +0000, Iain Buclaw via D.gnu wrote:
 
 Sorry, I already updated the branches as I needed a 4.9.2 backport
 for testing. I should probably think twice about this next time :-)
Nah - I shouldn't have to have my finger dipped in everything. It's just given me a list of more things to update today.
off: Iain (or Johannes), can you made gcc.builtin primitives ` nogc`, please? i completely lost in the code that generates 'em, but it blocks making "core.atomic" ` nogc`, and i can't build my project anymore. it's ok for me to manually patch "core.atomic", but sadly, i can't do this with gdc code.
That was a simple fix: https://github.com/D-Programming-GDC/GDC/commit/aa83d2ac749baa552f250891378118b704d7c589 If you make changes to core.atomic for nogc please provide a patch or file a pull request.
Jan 24 2015
parent reply ketmar <ketmar ketmar.no-ip.org> writes:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 23:35:55 +0100, Johannes Pfau wrote:

 Am Sat, 24 Jan 2015 13:07:43 +0000 (UTC)
 schrieb ketmar <ketmar ketmar.no-ip.org>:
=20
 On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 12:48:27 +0000, Iain Buclaw via D.gnu wrote:
=20
 Sorry, I already updated the branches as I needed a 4.9.2 backport
 for testing. I should probably think twice about this next time :-)
=20 Nah - I shouldn't have to have my finger dipped in everything. It's just given me a list of more things to update today.
=20 off: Iain (or Johannes), can you made gcc.builtin primitives ` nogc`, please? i completely lost in the code that generates 'em, but it blocks making "core.atomic" ` nogc`, and i can't build my project anymore. it's ok for me to manually patch "core.atomic", but sadly, i can't do this with gdc code.
=20 That was a simple fix: https://github.com/D-Programming-GDC/GDC/commit/
aa83d2ac749baa552f250891378118b704d7c589
=20
 If you make changes to core.atomic for  nogc please provide a patch or
 file a pull request.
thank you. i made manu of small changes to druntime and phobos, including=20 taking MonoTime from core.time, using std.utf from mainline git head,=20 'cause i need .byChar and so on. i also adding "nothow: nogc:" here and=20 there in druntime headers. dunno if it all of any real value, though. i can create some tickets in bugzilla with those patches, so you can pick=20 the ones you are interested in and just close all the others. or i can=20 simply dump 'em all in one ticket (but in different attaches). what will=20 be better?=
Jan 24 2015
parent reply Johannes Pfau <nospam example.com> writes:
Am Sat, 24 Jan 2015 23:28:52 +0000 (UTC)
schrieb ketmar <ketmar ketmar.no-ip.org>:

 On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 23:35:55 +0100, Johannes Pfau wrote:
 
 Am Sat, 24 Jan 2015 13:07:43 +0000 (UTC)
 schrieb ketmar <ketmar ketmar.no-ip.org>:
 
 On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 12:48:27 +0000, Iain Buclaw via D.gnu wrote:
 
 Sorry, I already updated the branches as I needed a 4.9.2
 backport for testing. I should probably think twice about this
 next time :-)
Nah - I shouldn't have to have my finger dipped in everything. It's just given me a list of more things to update today.
off: Iain (or Johannes), can you made gcc.builtin primitives ` nogc`, please? i completely lost in the code that generates 'em, but it blocks making "core.atomic" ` nogc`, and i can't build my project anymore. it's ok for me to manually patch "core.atomic", but sadly, i can't do this with gdc code.
That was a simple fix: https://github.com/D-Programming-GDC/GDC/commit/
aa83d2ac749baa552f250891378118b704d7c589
 
 If you make changes to core.atomic for  nogc please provide a patch
 or file a pull request.
thank you. i made manu of small changes to druntime and phobos, including taking MonoTime from core.time, using std.utf from mainline git head, 'cause i need .byChar and so on. i also adding "nothow: nogc:" here and there in druntime headers. dunno if it all of any real value, though. i can create some tickets in bugzilla with those patches, so you can pick the ones you are interested in and just close all the others. or i can simply dump 'em all in one ticket (but in different attaches). what will be better?
I thought you have ready to use patches. The nogc/nothrow changes are useful if they're not in mainline druntime yet but I don't really have the time to refactor such patches. So if you have ready to use patches against mainline please attach them to bug reports. Otherwise I guess somebody else will fix it in mainline druntime at some point.
Jan 25 2015
parent ketmar <ketmar ketmar.no-ip.org> writes:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 11:00:04 +0100, Johannes Pfau wrote:

 I thought you have ready to use patches. The nogc/nothrow changes are
 useful if they're not in mainline druntime yet but I don't really have
 the time to refactor such patches. So if you have ready to use patches
 against mainline please attach them to bug reports. Otherwise I guess
 somebody else will fix it in mainline druntime at some point.
mainline core.atomic is already nogc, but gdc is not. i'm using mainline=20 git head, with everyday updates, so i see alot of features that aren't in=20 "releases" and aren't in gdc. and i'm using some of that features, and=20 then i backporting some of them to gdc (sometimes with some dummy no-op=20 patches). so, for example, non- nogc atomic ops are gdc-specific and=20 absent in mainline. alot of core modules in mainline already has=20 "nothrow: nogc:", but not gdc core modules. that are the patches i'm=20 applying to gdc -- mostly to up it to mainline.=
Jan 25 2015