www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

D.gnu - DMD 2.067.1 pulled into master

reply Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw gdcproject.org> writes:
Hi,

https://github.com/D-Programming-GDC/GDC/pull/99

This is now in master.  Outside of the D changelog the following 
command-line arguments have been added / deprecated.

   -fd-verbose: Deprecated in favour of --verbose (-v)
   -fd-vtls: Deprecated in favour of -ftransition=tls (equivalent 
to -transition=tls)
   -fd-vgc: Deprecated in favour of -ftransition=nogc (equivalent 
to -vgc)

   -femit-moduleinfo: Deprecated in favour of -fmoduleinfo, as the 
default is always ON.

   -ftransition=field: New switch, equivalent to -transition=field

I will try to also deprecate the other main culprits from bug#119 
in the new 2.068 branch that has opened up.   dub, and others 
that interact with GDC, please take note. ;-)
Mar 06 2016
next sibling parent Stefan Koch <uplink.coder googlemail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 6 March 2016 at 16:41:03 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
 Hi,

 https://github.com/D-Programming-GDC/GDC/pull/99

 This is now in master.  Outside of the D changelog the 
 following command-line arguments have been added / deprecated.

   -fd-verbose: Deprecated in favour of --verbose (-v)
   -fd-vtls: Deprecated in favour of -ftransition=tls 
 (equivalent to -transition=tls)
   -fd-vgc: Deprecated in favour of -ftransition=nogc 
 (equivalent to -vgc)

   -femit-moduleinfo: Deprecated in favour of -fmoduleinfo, as 
 the default is always ON.

   -ftransition=field: New switch, equivalent to 
 -transition=field

 I will try to also deprecate the other main culprits from 
 bug#119 in the new 2.068 branch that has opened up.   dub, and 
 others that interact with GDC, please take note. ;-)
Big Thumbs Up!
Mar 21 2016
prev sibling parent reply Jack Stouffer <jack jackstouffer.com> writes:
On Sunday, 6 March 2016 at 16:41:03 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
 Hi,

 https://github.com/D-Programming-GDC/GDC/pull/99

 This is now in master.  Outside of the D changelog the 
 following command-line arguments have been added / deprecated.
Wow, congrats. From your comments elsewhere I assumed there was a lot more work needed before this happened. What's the future of GDC in terms of speed of releases.
Mar 22 2016
parent reply "Iain Buclaw via D.gnu" <d.gnu puremagic.com> writes:
On 23 March 2016 at 05:18, Jack Stouffer via D.gnu <d.gnu puremagic.com>
wrote:

 On Sunday, 6 March 2016 at 16:41:03 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:

 Hi,

 https://github.com/D-Programming-GDC/GDC/pull/99

 This is now in master.  Outside of the D changelog the following
 command-line arguments have been added / deprecated.
Wow, congrats. From your comments elsewhere I assumed there was a lot more work needed before this happened. What's the future of GDC in terms of speed of releases.
There is still a lot of work (about 10k lines of refactor-going-on-rewrite) needed for it. It may support all 2.067 features, but it's still using the old codegen interface that has been removed in upstream. ;-)
Mar 23 2016
parent reply Temtaime <temtaime gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 at 08:58:58 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
 On 23 March 2016 at 05:18, Jack Stouffer via D.gnu 
 <d.gnu puremagic.com> wrote:

 On Sunday, 6 March 2016 at 16:41:03 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:

 Hi,

 https://github.com/D-Programming-GDC/GDC/pull/99

 This is now in master.  Outside of the D changelog the 
 following command-line arguments have been added / deprecated.
Wow, congrats. From your comments elsewhere I assumed there was a lot more work needed before this happened. What's the future of GDC in terms of speed of releases.
There is still a lot of work (about 10k lines of refactor-going-on-rewrite) needed for it. It may support all 2.067 features, but it's still using the old codegen interface that has been removed in upstream. ;-)
So GDC seems to be dead. That's a pity. No one from GDC's team wanna join LDC's one ?
Mar 23 2016
next sibling parent reply Jack Stouffer <jack jackstouffer.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 at 11:24:07 UTC, Temtaime wrote:
 So GDC seems to be dead. That's a pity.
 No one from GDC's team wanna join LDC's one ?
Either you have terrible reading comprehension or you're making a very unfunny joke.
Mar 23 2016
parent reply Temtaime <temtaime gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 at 13:20:56 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
 On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 at 11:24:07 UTC, Temtaime wrote:
 So GDC seems to be dead. That's a pity.
 No one from GDC's team wanna join LDC's one ?
Either you have terrible reading comprehension or you're making a very unfunny joke.
2.067 frontend is outdated, isn't it ? For instance i can't build my code with dmd < 2.069 due to tons of bugs in the frontend. And when i discover new bugs, i have to write ugly workarounds, and i have to remove them when there's new version of frontend with bugfixes. And yes, keeping them to support outdated frontend versions is a bad practice. So in Q1 2016 GDC is only 2.067. And it isn't based on D frontend, so when it will be time to move to D frontend, the gap will raise. You see ?
Mar 23 2016
next sibling parent Jack Stouffer <jack jackstouffer.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 at 13:35:47 UTC, Temtaime wrote:
 On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 at 13:20:56 UTC, Jack Stouffer 
 wrote:
 On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 at 11:24:07 UTC, Temtaime wrote:
 So GDC seems to be dead. That's a pity.
 No one from GDC's team wanna join LDC's one ?
Either you have terrible reading comprehension or you're making a very unfunny joke.
2.067 frontend is outdated, isn't it ? For instance i can't build my code with dmd < 2.069 due to tons of bugs in the frontend. And when i discover new bugs, i have to write ugly workarounds, and i have to remove them when there's new version of frontend with bugfixes. And yes, keeping them to support outdated frontend versions is a bad practice. So in Q1 2016 GDC is only 2.067. And it isn't based on D frontend, so when it will be time to move to D frontend, the gap will raise. You see ?
You changed the subject. We were taking about the status of the GDC project, and now you're talking about its obsolescence. These are two different things. Considering the fact that GDC just merged a huge new update, no it's not "dead".
Mar 23 2016
prev sibling parent "Iain Buclaw via D.gnu" <d.gnu puremagic.com> writes:
On 23 March 2016 at 14:35, Temtaime via D.gnu <d.gnu puremagic.com> wrote:

 On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 at 13:20:56 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:

 On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 at 11:24:07 UTC, Temtaime wrote:

 So GDC seems to be dead. That's a pity.
 No one from GDC's team wanna join LDC's one ?
Either you have terrible reading comprehension or you're making a very unfunny joke.
2.067 frontend is outdated, isn't it ? For instance i can't build my code with dmd < 2.069 due to tons of bugs in the frontend. And when i discover new bugs, i have to write ugly workarounds, and i have to remove them when there's new version of frontend with bugfixes. And yes, keeping them to support outdated frontend versions is a bad practice. So in Q1 2016 GDC is only 2.067. And it isn't based on D frontend, so when it will be time to move to D frontend, the gap will raise. You see ?
In all likelihood, we'd just jump from 2.068 to LATEST in one leap. Because as far as I'm concerned every release since 2.069 is a horribly broken release, and until upstream fixes their code, there's no chance of moving forward. However the compiler implementation itself will remain being compatible with 2.068 features. So there is no rush to bootstrap it, or to start cherry-picking bug fixes today.
Mar 23 2016
prev sibling parent reply "Sebastien Alaiwan via D.gnu" <d.gnu puremagic.com> writes:
From: Sebastien Alaiwan <sebastien.alaiwan gmail.com>
To: "D.gnu" <d.gnu puremagic.com>
Message-ID: <56F2DBC2.9090604 gmail.com>
Subject: Re: DMD 2.067.1 pulled into master
References: <axjwbwiuifnjaaomcizd forum.dlang.org>
 <mtfxtfvbbmfzbkgnwrsy forum.dlang.org>
 <mailman.598.1458723554.26339.d.gnu puremagic.com>
 <mjwaxryjizztlbemmtog forum.dlang.org>
In-Reply-To: <mjwaxryjizztlbemmtog forum.dlang.org>

--daCkFwa39IiRkmwqOkOKLK63v0FWEKLAh
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------010208010707050801070101"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------010208010707050801070101
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 2016-03-23 12:24, Temtaime via D.gnu wrote:
 On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 at 08:58:58 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
 On 23 March 2016 at 05:18, Jack Stouffer via D.gnu <d.gnu puremagic.co=
m> wrote:
 On Sunday, 6 March 2016 at 16:41:03 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:

 Hi,

 https://github.com/D-Programming-GDC/GDC/pull/99

 This is now in master.  Outside of the D changelog the following com=
mand-line arguments have been added / deprecated.

 Wow, congrats. From your comments elsewhere I assumed there was a lot=
more work needed before this happened.
 What's the future of GDC in terms of speed of releases.
There is still a lot of work (about 10k lines of refactor-going-on-rew=
rite) needed for it. It may support all 2.067 features, but it's still u= sing the old codegen interface that has been removed in upstream. ;-)
 So GDC seems to be dead. That's a pity.
You must have a curious definition of 'dead'.
 No one from GDC's team wanna join LDC's one ?
Is LDC currently suffering from a lack of developers? --------------010208010707050801070101 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html> <head> <meta content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dutf-8" http-equiv=3D"Content-Ty= pe"> </head> <body text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"> <div class=3D"moz-cite-prefix">On 2016-03-23 12:24, Temtaime via D.gn= u wrote:<br> </div> <blockquote cite=3D"mid:mjwaxryjizztlbemmtog forum.dlang.org" type=3D"cite"> <div class=3D"moz-text-flowed" style=3D"font-family: -moz-fixed; font-size: 12px;" lang=3D"x-unicode"> <br> <div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 at 08:58:5= 8 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: <blockquote type=3D"cite"> On 23 March 2016 at 05:18, Jack Stouffer via D.gnu <a moz-do-not-send=3D"true" class=3D"moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href=3D"mailto:d.gnu puremagic.com"><a class=3D"moz-txt-lin= k-rfc2396E" href=3D"mailto:d.gnu puremagic.com">&lt;d.gnu puremagic.com&g= t;</a></a> wrote: <br> <br> <blockquote type=3D"cite" style=3D"color: #000000;">On Sunday= , 6 March 2016 at 16:41:03 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: <br> <br> <blockquote type=3D"cite" style=3D"color: #000000;">Hi, <br> <br> <a moz-do-not-send=3D"true" class=3D"moz-txt-link-freetex= t" href=3D"https://github.com/D-Programming-GDC/GDC/pull/99">https://github.= com/D-Programming-GDC/GDC/pull/99</a> <br> <br> This is now in master.=C2=A0 Outside of the D changelog t= he following command-line arguments have been added / deprecated. <br> <br> </blockquote> <br> Wow, congrats. From your comments elsewhere I assumed there was a lot more work needed before this happened. <br> <br> What's the future of GDC in terms of speed of releases. <br> <br> </blockquote> <br> There is still a lot of work (about 10k lines of refactor-going-on-rewrite) needed for it.=C2=A0 It may suppor= t all 2.067 features, but it's still using the old codegen interface that has been removed in upstream. <span class=3D"moz-smiley-s3" title=3D";-)"><span>;-)</span></spa= n> <br> </blockquote> </div> <br> So GDC seems to be dead. That's a pity. <br> </div> </blockquote> You must have a curious definition of 'dead'.<br> <br> <blockquote cite=3D"mid:mjwaxryjizztlbemmtog forum.dlang.org" type=3D"cite"> <div class=3D"moz-text-flowed" style=3D"font-family: -moz-fixed; font-size: 12px;" lang=3D"x-unicode">No one from GDC's team wanna= join LDC's one ? <br> </div> </blockquote> Is LDC currently suffering from a lack of developers?<br> <br> </body> </html> --------------010208010707050801070101-- --daCkFwa39IiRkmwqOkOKLK63v0FWEKLAh--
Mar 23 2016
parent Kai Nacke <kai redstar.de> writes:
On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 at 18:09:06 UTC, Sebastien Alaiwan 
wrote:
 On 2016-03-23 12:24, Temtaime via D.gnu wrote:
 No one from GDC's team wanna join LDC's one ?
Is LDC currently suffering from a lack of developers?
No. Regards, Kai
Mar 24 2016