www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - LLVM 3.0 type system changes

reply filgood <filgood somewhere.net> writes:
as described here:

http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/TypeSystemRewrite.txt

Btw, what is the status of the D2 LLVM compiler?

thx, fil
Mar 07 2011
next sibling parent reply David Nadlinger <see klickverbot.at> writes:
On 3/7/11 9:03 PM, filgood wrote:
 as described here:

 http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/TypeSystemRewrite.txt
Naming the thread »LLVM 3.0 type system changes« is slightly misleading – the above document by Chris Lattner is merely a working draft… David
Mar 07 2011
parent filgood <filgood somewhere.net> writes:
On 07/03/2011 20:09, David Nadlinger wrote:
 On 3/7/11 9:03 PM, filgood wrote:
 as described here:

 http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/TypeSystemRewrite.txt
Naming the thread »LLVM 3.0 type system changes« is slightly misleading – the above document by Chris Lattner is merely a working draft… David
sorry, should maybe have been <Potential LLVM 3.0 type system changes>. Anyway, I thougth it might have been of interest for this NG as there is a LLVM compiler for D2/D1. Further, I wanted to use the topic to see what the status on the LLVM compiler for D2 is.... thx, fil
Mar 07 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Bernard Helyer <b.helyer gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 20:03:36 +0000, filgood wrote:

 as described here:
 
 http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/TypeSystemRewrite.txt
 
 Btw, what is the status of the D2 LLVM compiler?
You're probably wondering about LDC2, but I'll chip in with SDC's ( https://github.com/bhelyer/SDC ) status here: On the road to some kind of 0.1, but a lot of work to be done -- it should land some time this year, however. Keeping current with DMD releases, current with LLVM releases.
Mar 07 2011
next sibling parent reply Caligo <iteronvexor gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Bernard Helyer <b.helyer gmail.com> wrote:

 On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 20:03:36 +0000, filgood wrote:

 as described here:

 http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/TypeSystemRewrite.txt

 Btw, what is the status of the D2 LLVM compiler?
You're probably wondering about LDC2, but I'll chip in with SDC's ( https://github.com/bhelyer/SDC ) status here: On the road to some kind of 0.1, but a lot of work to be done -- it should land some time this year, however. Keeping current with DMD releases, current with LLVM releases.
Do we really need another D compiler that doesn't work?
Mar 07 2011
next sibling parent reply Bernard Helyer <b.helyer gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 20:41:39 -0600, Caligo wrote:
 Do we really need another D compiler that doesn't work?
Name me a working D2 compiler that doesn't have a front-end based based on DMD. Furthermore, name me an in progress independent implementation further along than SDC. The only candidate is Dil. SDC _will_ be finished, mark my words. Regards, Some one who remembers why they don't use the NG that much.
Mar 07 2011
parent reply Caligo <iteronvexor gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Bernard Helyer <b.helyer gmail.com> wrote:

 On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 20:41:39 -0600, Caligo wrote:
 Do we really need another D compiler that doesn't work?
Name me a working D2 compiler that doesn't have a front-end based based on DMD. Furthermore, name me an in progress independent implementation further along than SDC. The only candidate is Dil. SDC _will_ be finished, mark my words. Regards, Some one who remembers why they don't use the NG that much.
Yes, I know about dil, but I wonder why you chose not to contribute to dil instead of starting a new project. AFAIK dil is D1.
Mar 07 2011
parent reply Bernard Helyer <b.helyer gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 00:15:54 -0600, Caligo wrote:

 On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Bernard Helyer <b.helyer gmail.com>
 wrote:
 
 On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 20:41:39 -0600, Caligo wrote:
 Do we really need another D compiler that doesn't work?
Name me a working D2 compiler that doesn't have a front-end based based on DMD. Furthermore, name me an in progress independent implementation further along than SDC. The only candidate is Dil. SDC _will_ be finished, mark my words. Regards, Some one who remembers why they don't use the NG that much.
Yes, I know about dil, but I wonder why you chose not to contribute to dil instead of starting a new project. AFAIK dil is D1.
I know about Dil. aziz is great, the project is great. However, I know and want to use D2/Phobos. Plus, if I'm going to spend years on a project, I may as well use stuff I like. Furthermore, SDC didn't start out as a full compiler. Just playing around with lexing/parsing D. NIH syndrome, too.
Mar 07 2011
next sibling parent reply Caligo <iteronvexor gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Bernard Helyer <b.helyer gmail.com> wrote:

 On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 00:15:54 -0600, Caligo wrote:

 On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Bernard Helyer <b.helyer gmail.com>
 wrote:

 On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 20:41:39 -0600, Caligo wrote:
 Do we really need another D compiler that doesn't work?
Name me a working D2 compiler that doesn't have a front-end based based on DMD. Furthermore, name me an in progress independent implementation further along than SDC. The only candidate is Dil. SDC _will_ be finished, mark my words. Regards, Some one who remembers why they don't use the NG that much.
Yes, I know about dil, but I wonder why you chose not to contribute to dil instead of starting a new project. AFAIK dil is D1.
I know about Dil. aziz is great, the project is great. However, I know and want to use D2/Phobos. Plus, if I'm going to spend years on a project, I may as well use stuff I like. Furthermore, SDC didn't start out as a full compiler. Just playing around with lexing/parsing D. NIH syndrome, too.
I was aware of your "NIH syndrome", and that's why I have a problem with this. The main reason you are doing this is to serve your own needs, to make yourself feel good, to earn some kind of recognition, but not to serve the community in any meaningful way. Even if the project fails, it will look good on your resume because you took the time to develop a compiler. This kind of behavior is very common in the FOSS community, and it has become a disease. It's the reason why there are thousands of dead software projects that were never completed and maintained. I spoke with Aziz two years ago, and he had the same exact attitude. His excuse? He hates C++ and he thinks Walter's front end is horrible. So instead of contributing to ldc, he continued to work on his own compiler. After years of hard work, I doubt many would be willing to call dil a success. Instead of wasting all his time and energy on dil, Aziz could have contributed to ldc and ldc would have been in a much better shape today. And maybe, just maybe, today we would have a production quality free and open source D compiler that just works. Good luck trying to compile dil, ldc, etc, let alone have them compile your D code and produce an executable that runs the way it should. I just don't understand why people can't work together. Life is too damn short.
Mar 08 2011
next sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 09:33:19 -0500, Caligo <iteronvexor gmail.com> wrote:

 On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Bernard Helyer <b.helyer gmail.com>  
 wrote:

 On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 00:15:54 -0600, Caligo wrote:

 On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Bernard Helyer <b.helyer gmail.com>
 wrote:

 On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 20:41:39 -0600, Caligo wrote:
 Do we really need another D compiler that doesn't work?
Name me a working D2 compiler that doesn't have a front-end based
based
 on DMD. Furthermore, name me an in progress independent  
implementation
 further along than SDC. The only candidate is Dil.

 SDC _will_ be finished, mark my words.


 Regards,
  Some one who remembers why they don't use the NG that much.
Yes, I know about dil, but I wonder why you chose not to contribute to dil instead of starting a new project. AFAIK dil is D1.
I know about Dil. aziz is great, the project is great. However, I know and want to use D2/Phobos. Plus, if I'm going to spend years on a project, I may as well use stuff I like. Furthermore, SDC didn't start out as a full compiler. Just playing around with lexing/parsing D. NIH syndrome, too.
I was aware of your "NIH syndrome", and that's why I have a problem with this. The main reason you are doing this is to serve your own needs, to make yourself feel good, to earn some kind of recognition, but not to serve the community in any meaningful way. Even if the project fails, it will look good on your resume because you took the time to develop a compiler. This kind of behavior is very common in the FOSS community, and it has become a disease. It's the reason why there are thousands of dead software projects that were never completed and maintained.
Hindsight is 20/20. How selfish of Linus Torvalds to create Linux instead of contributing to FreeBSD or Hurd. The thing is, this "disease" is the reason why most open-source projects are started. You can't say the ones that are successes were started any differently than ones that are not. One starts an open source project (in most cases) to do something fun, interesting, and maybe create something that everyone uses. Nobody starts them because they know it's going to be a success. What if Dil is completed and LDC is abandoned? Will you come back here and lambaste the LDC developers for not abandoning their *obviously* flawed project and joining dil? Give me a break... Congrats Bernard on your efforts, I hope you succeed. We need *more* compilers for D, not less. -Steve
Mar 08 2011
parent reply Caligo <iteronvexor gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy yahoo.com>wrote:

 On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 09:33:19 -0500, Caligo <iteronvexor gmail.com> wrote:

  On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Bernard Helyer <b.helyer gmail.com>
 wrote:

  On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 00:15:54 -0600, Caligo wrote:
 On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Bernard Helyer <b.helyer gmail.com>
 wrote:

 On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 20:41:39 -0600, Caligo wrote:
 Do we really need another D compiler that doesn't work?
Name me a working D2 compiler that doesn't have a front-end based
based
 on DMD. Furthermore, name me an in progress independent implementation
 further along than SDC. The only candidate is Dil.

 SDC _will_ be finished, mark my words.


 Regards,
  Some one who remembers why they don't use the NG that much.
Yes, I know about dil, but I wonder why you chose not to contribute to dil instead of starting a new project. AFAIK dil is D1.
I know about Dil. aziz is great, the project is great. However, I know and want to use D2/Phobos. Plus, if I'm going to spend years on a project, I may as well use stuff I like. Furthermore, SDC didn't start out as a full compiler. Just playing around with lexing/parsing D. NIH syndrome, too.
I was aware of your "NIH syndrome", and that's why I have a problem with this. The main reason you are doing this is to serve your own needs, to make yourself feel good, to earn some kind of recognition, but not to serve the community in any meaningful way. Even if the project fails, it will look good on your resume because you took the time to develop a compiler. This kind of behavior is very common in the FOSS community, and it has become a disease. It's the reason why there are thousands of dead software projects that were never completed and maintained.
Hindsight is 20/20. How selfish of Linus Torvalds to create Linux instead of contributing to FreeBSD or Hurd. The thing is, this "disease" is the reason why most open-source projects are started. You can't say the ones that are successes were started any differently than ones that are not. One starts an open source project (in most cases) to do something fun, interesting, and maybe create something that everyone uses. Nobody starts them because they know it's going to be a success. What if Dil is completed and LDC is abandoned? Will you come back here and lambaste the LDC developers for not abandoning their *obviously* flawed project and joining dil? Give me a break... Congrats Bernard on your efforts, I hope you succeed. We need *more* compilers for D, not less. -Steve
Linux and the Hurd are very different; It's like comparing D and C++, but I'll bite. How about all the people that chose to contribute to the Linux kernel instead of starting a new OS kernel project?? It's because of them that the Linux kernel is what it is today. It's because of them that the project continued to grow and get better. It's because of them that we don't have 50 different unfinished and broken OS kernels.
Mar 08 2011
next sibling parent "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 10:15:26 -0500, Caligo <iteronvexor gmail.com> wrote:

 On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Steven Schveighoffer  
 <schveiguy yahoo.com>wrote:

 On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 09:33:19 -0500, Caligo <iteronvexor gmail.com>  
 wrote:

  On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Bernard Helyer <b.helyer gmail.com>
 wrote:

  On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 00:15:54 -0600, Caligo wrote:
 On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Bernard Helyer <b.helyer gmail.com>
 wrote:

 On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 20:41:39 -0600, Caligo wrote:
 Do we really need another D compiler that doesn't work?
Name me a working D2 compiler that doesn't have a front-end based
based
 on DMD. Furthermore, name me an in progress independent  
implementation
 further along than SDC. The only candidate is Dil.

 SDC _will_ be finished, mark my words.


 Regards,
  Some one who remembers why they don't use the NG that much.
Yes, I know about dil, but I wonder why you chose not to contribute
to
 dil instead of starting a new project.  AFAIK dil is D1.
I know about Dil. aziz is great, the project is great. However, I know and want to use D2/Phobos. Plus, if I'm going to spend years on a project, I may as well use stuff I like. Furthermore, SDC didn't start out as a full compiler. Just playing around with lexing/parsing D. NIH syndrome, too.
I was aware of your "NIH syndrome", and that's why I have a problem with this. The main reason you are doing this is to serve your own needs, to make yourself feel good, to earn some kind of recognition, but not to serve the community in any meaningful way. Even if the project fails, it will look good on your resume because you took the time to develop a compiler. This kind of behavior is very common in the FOSS community, and it has become a disease. It's the reason why there are thousands of dead software projects that were never completed and maintained.
Hindsight is 20/20. How selfish of Linus Torvalds to create Linux instead of contributing to FreeBSD or Hurd. The thing is, this "disease" is the reason why most open-source projects are started. You can't say the ones that are successes were started any differently than ones that are not. One starts an open source project (in most cases) to do something fun, interesting, and maybe create something that everyone uses. Nobody starts them because they know it's going to be a success. What if Dil is completed and LDC is abandoned? Will you come back here and lambaste the LDC developers for not abandoning their *obviously* flawed project and joining dil? Give me a break... Congrats Bernard on your efforts, I hope you succeed. We need *more* compilers for D, not less. -Steve
Linux and the Hurd are very different; It's like comparing D and C++, but I'll bite. How about all the people that chose to contribute to the Linux kernel instead of starting a new OS kernel project?? It's because of them that the Linux kernel is what it is today. It's because of them that the project continued to grow and get better. It's because of them that we don't have 50 different unfinished and broken OS kernels.
Maybe you missed the part where I said Hindsight is 20/20. Good thing it is, so you can go back and read that part again. It's like saying how stupid OS/2 was because they should have been more successful like Windows. Yeah, would be nice to be able to predict success and failure. -Steve
Mar 08 2011
prev sibling parent Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> writes:
== Quote from Caligo (iteronvexor gmail.com)'s article
 --bcaec501662700415d049dfa1521
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
 On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Steven Schveighoffer
<schveiguy yahoo.com>wrote:
 On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 09:33:19 -0500, Caligo <iteronvexor gmail.com> wrote:

  On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Bernard Helyer <b.helyer gmail.com>
 wrote:

  On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 00:15:54 -0600, Caligo wrote:
 On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Bernard Helyer <b.helyer gmail.com>
 wrote:

 On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 20:41:39 -0600, Caligo wrote:
 Do we really need another D compiler that doesn't work?
Name me a working D2 compiler that doesn't have a front-end based
based
 on DMD. Furthermore, name me an in progress independent implementation
 further along than SDC. The only candidate is Dil.

 SDC _will_ be finished, mark my words.


 Regards,
  Some one who remembers why they don't use the NG that much.
Yes, I know about dil, but I wonder why you chose not to contribute to dil instead of starting a new project. AFAIK dil is D1.
I know about Dil. aziz is great, the project is great. However, I know and want to use D2/Phobos. Plus, if I'm going to spend years on a project, I may as well use stuff I like. Furthermore, SDC didn't start out as a full compiler. Just playing around with lexing/parsing D. NIH syndrome, too.
I was aware of your "NIH syndrome", and that's why I have a problem with this. The main reason you are doing this is to serve your own needs, to make yourself feel good, to earn some kind of recognition, but not to serve the community in any meaningful way. Even if the project fails, it will look good on your resume because you took the time to develop a compiler. This kind of behavior is very common in the FOSS community, and it has become a disease. It's the reason why there are thousands of dead software projects that were never completed and maintained.
Hindsight is 20/20. How selfish of Linus Torvalds to create Linux instead of contributing to FreeBSD or Hurd. The thing is, this "disease" is the reason why most open-source projects are started. You can't say the ones that are successes were started any differently than ones that are not. One starts an open source project (in most cases) to do something fun, interesting, and maybe create something that everyone uses. Nobody starts them because they know it's going to be a success. What if Dil is completed and LDC is abandoned? Will you come back here and lambaste the LDC developers for not abandoning their *obviously* flawed project and joining dil? Give me a break... Congrats Bernard on your efforts, I hope you succeed. We need *more* compilers for D, not less. -Steve
Linux and the Hurd are very different; It's like comparing D and C++, but I'll bite. How about all the people that chose to contribute to the Linux kernel instead of starting a new OS kernel project?? It's because of them that the Linux kernel is what it is today. It's because of them that the project continued to grow and get better. It's because of them that we don't have 50 different unfinished and broken OS kernels.
Just because you don't hear about them, doesn't mean they aren't there. Anyway, what has your biting got to do with LLVM type system changes? :)
Mar 08 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 16:33:19 +0200, Caligo <iteronvexor gmail.com> wrote:

 I was aware of your "NIH syndrome", and that's why I have a problem with
 this.  The main reason you are doing this is to serve your own needs, to
 make yourself feel good, to earn some kind of recognition, but not to  
 serve
 the community in any meaningful way.  Even if the project fails, it will
 look good on your resume because you took the time to develop a compiler.
 This kind of behavior is very common in the FOSS community, and it has
 become a disease.  It's the reason why there are thousands of dead  
 software
 projects that were never completed and maintained.
Dude, WTF? People can't work on stuff they want to work any more without someone like you blasting them for it? Take a second to recall that open-source projects are done in people's free time, mainly because they ENJOY doing it. Who is anyone to tell me what to do in my free time, especially if I wouldn't enjoy it? People like YOU are a disease for the open-source community, demotivating people who bother to release, publish sources for and sometimes support the projects they do in their free time. P.S. Don't bother replying, you're in my killfile. -- Best regards, Vladimir mailto:vladimir thecybershadow.net
Mar 08 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> writes:
== Quote from Caligo (iteronvexor gmail.com)'s article
 --bcaec51a83ee693a30049df97ef8
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
 On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Bernard Helyer <b.helyer gmail.com> wrote:
 On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 00:15:54 -0600, Caligo wrote:

 On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Bernard Helyer <b.helyer gmail.com>
 wrote:

 On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 20:41:39 -0600, Caligo wrote:
 Do we really need another D compiler that doesn't work?
Name me a working D2 compiler that doesn't have a front-end based based on DMD. Furthermore, name me an in progress independent implementation further along than SDC. The only candidate is Dil. SDC _will_ be finished, mark my words. Regards, Some one who remembers why they don't use the NG that much.
Yes, I know about dil, but I wonder why you chose not to contribute to dil instead of starting a new project. AFAIK dil is D1.
I know about Dil. aziz is great, the project is great. However, I know and want to use D2/Phobos. Plus, if I'm going to spend years on a project, I may as well use stuff I like. Furthermore, SDC didn't start out as a full compiler. Just playing around with lexing/parsing D. NIH syndrome, too.
I was aware of your "NIH syndrome", and that's why I have a problem with this. The main reason you are doing this is to serve your own needs, to make yourself feel good, to earn some kind of recognition, but not to serve the community in any meaningful way. Even if the project fails, it will look good on your resume because you took the time to develop a compiler. This kind of behavior is very common in the FOSS community, and it has become a disease. It's the reason why there are thousands of dead software projects that were never completed and maintained.
IMHO, there's no such thing as a completed project. And if there is, then it will need maintaining in 6-12 months time regardless. Libraries change, systems change, compilers change. Ever tried compiling a 'finished' project written 5 years ago with a modern GCC compiler? It can be rather tricky, especially if said project depended on certain mis-features of the language implementation at the time.
Mar 08 2011
parent reply Caligo <iteronvexor gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> wrote:

 == Quote from Caligo (iteronvexor gmail.com)'s article
 --bcaec51a83ee693a30049df97ef8
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
 On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Bernard Helyer <b.helyer gmail.com>
wrote:
 On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 00:15:54 -0600, Caligo wrote:

 On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Bernard Helyer <b.helyer gmail.com>
 wrote:

 On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 20:41:39 -0600, Caligo wrote:
 Do we really need another D compiler that doesn't work?
Name me a working D2 compiler that doesn't have a front-end based
based
 on DMD. Furthermore, name me an in progress independent
implementation
 further along than SDC. The only candidate is Dil.

 SDC _will_ be finished, mark my words.


 Regards,
  Some one who remembers why they don't use the NG that much.
Yes, I know about dil, but I wonder why you chose not to contribute
to
 dil instead of starting a new project.  AFAIK dil is D1.
I know about Dil. aziz is great, the project is great. However, I know and want to use D2/Phobos. Plus, if I'm going to spend years on a project, I may as well use stuff I like. Furthermore, SDC didn't start out as a full compiler. Just playing around with lexing/parsing D. NIH syndrome, too.
I was aware of your "NIH syndrome", and that's why I have a problem with this. The main reason you are doing this is to serve your own needs, to make yourself feel good, to earn some kind of recognition, but not to
serve
 the community in any meaningful way.  Even if the project fails, it will
 look good on your resume because you took the time to develop a compiler.
 This kind of behavior is very common in the FOSS community, and it has
 become a disease.  It's the reason why there are thousands of dead
software
 projects that were never completed and maintained.
IMHO, there's no such thing as a completed project. And if there is, then it will need maintaining in 6-12 months time regardless. Libraries change, systems change, compilers change. Ever tried compiling a 'finished' project written 5 years ago with a modern GCC compiler? It can be rather tricky, especially if said project depended on certain mis-features of the language implementation at the time.
Sure, I agree, many software projects are constantly changing and improving. But many software projects also have released versions that one could say are "complete"; the user could use that version for months and perhaps years with no problem. Our university Unix servers have gcc 3.4.4, which is about 7 years old. Hundreds of students use it everyday with no problem. It would be nice to have have the latest version, but it works and does what it's supposed to. Which version of GDC do you feel comfortable using for the next 12 months to compile your D2 code? How about ldc2?
Mar 09 2011
parent Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> writes:
== Quote from Caligo (iteronvexor gmail.com)'s article
 --20cf3071c90ac76e43049e166972
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
 On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> wrote:
 == Quote from Caligo (iteronvexor gmail.com)'s article
 --bcaec51a83ee693a30049df97ef8
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
 On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Bernard Helyer <b.helyer gmail.com>
wrote:
 On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 00:15:54 -0600, Caligo wrote:

 On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Bernard Helyer <b.helyer gmail.com>
 wrote:

 On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 20:41:39 -0600, Caligo wrote:
 Do we really need another D compiler that doesn't work?
Name me a working D2 compiler that doesn't have a front-end based
based
 on DMD. Furthermore, name me an in progress independent
implementation
 further along than SDC. The only candidate is Dil.

 SDC _will_ be finished, mark my words.


 Regards,
  Some one who remembers why they don't use the NG that much.
Yes, I know about dil, but I wonder why you chose not to contribute
to
 dil instead of starting a new project.  AFAIK dil is D1.
I know about Dil. aziz is great, the project is great. However, I know and want to use D2/Phobos. Plus, if I'm going to spend years on a project, I may as well use stuff I like. Furthermore, SDC didn't start out as a full compiler. Just playing around with lexing/parsing D. NIH syndrome, too.
I was aware of your "NIH syndrome", and that's why I have a problem with this. The main reason you are doing this is to serve your own needs, to make yourself feel good, to earn some kind of recognition, but not to
serve
 the community in any meaningful way.  Even if the project fails, it will
 look good on your resume because you took the time to develop a compiler.
 This kind of behavior is very common in the FOSS community, and it has
 become a disease.  It's the reason why there are thousands of dead
software
 projects that were never completed and maintained.
IMHO, there's no such thing as a completed project. And if there is, then it will need maintaining in 6-12 months time regardless. Libraries change, systems change, compilers change. Ever tried compiling a 'finished' project written 5 years ago with a modern GCC compiler? It can be rather tricky, especially if said project depended on certain mis-features of the language implementation at the time.
Sure, I agree, many software projects are constantly changing and improving. But many software projects also have released versions that one could say are "complete"; the user could use that version for months and perhaps years with no problem. Our university Unix servers have gcc 3.4.4, which is about 7 years old. Hundreds of students use it everyday with no problem. It would be nice to have have the latest version, but it works and does what it's supposed to. Which version of GDC do you feel comfortable using for the next 12 months to compile your D2 code?
I would say each GCC compiler version is about as stable as each other. GDC on GCC-4.2 I would consider to be the 'long-term' stable version to go for. GCC-4.5 being the next in line for that (though still have one or two deeply roosted codegen quirks to iron out yet). But each has it's own unique problems though, partly because the constraints of the D language push the GCC backend in some interesting ways (things that ICE on 4.4 may compile just fine on 4.5 and vice-versa). Maybe if development always followed the trunk, would be able to catch breaking backend changes more swiftly. Though it is pretty nightmarish keeping compatibility with GCC-4.1 through to 4.5 in one tree as it is.
Mar 10 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent Bernard Helyer <b.helyer gmail.com> writes:
Screw diplomacy. Go fuck yourself and have a nice day. :)
Mar 08 2011
prev sibling parent Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
Caligo Wrote:

 And maybe, just maybe, today we would have a production quality free and
 open source D compiler that just works.  Good luck trying to compile dil,
 ldc, etc, let alone have them compile your D code and produce an executable
 that runs the way it should.
What's problem? If dmd doesn't work for you, try gcc.
Mar 09 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent spir <denis.spir gmail.com> writes:
On 03/08/2011 03:33 PM, Caligo wrote:
 On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Bernard Helyer<b.helyer gmail.com>  wrote:

 On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 00:15:54 -0600, Caligo wrote:

 On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Bernard Helyer<b.helyer gmail.com>
 wrote:

 On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 20:41:39 -0600, Caligo wrote:
 Do we really need another D compiler that doesn't work?
Name me a working D2 compiler that doesn't have a front-end based based on DMD. Furthermore, name me an in progress independent implementation further along than SDC. The only candidate is Dil. SDC _will_ be finished, mark my words. Regards, Some one who remembers why they don't use the NG that much.
Yes, I know about dil, but I wonder why you chose not to contribute to dil instead of starting a new project. AFAIK dil is D1.
I know about Dil. aziz is great, the project is great. However, I know and want to use D2/Phobos. Plus, if I'm going to spend years on a project, I may as well use stuff I like. Furthermore, SDC didn't start out as a full compiler. Just playing around with lexing/parsing D. NIH syndrome, too.
I was aware of your "NIH syndrome", and that's why I have a problem with this. The main reason you are doing this is to serve your own needs, to make yourself feel good, to earn some kind of recognition, but not to serve the community in any meaningful way. Even if the project fails, it will look good on your resume because you took the time to develop a compiler. This kind of behavior is very common in the FOSS community, and it has become a disease. It's the reason why there are thousands of dead software projects that were never completed and maintained. I spoke with Aziz two years ago, and he had the same exact attitude. His excuse? He hates C++ and he thinks Walter's front end is horrible. So instead of contributing to ldc, he continued to work on his own compiler. After years of hard work, I doubt many would be willing to call dil a success. Instead of wasting all his time and energy on dil, Aziz could have contributed to ldc and ldc would have been in a much better shape today. And maybe, just maybe, today we would have a production quality free and open source D compiler that just works. Good luck trying to compile dil, ldc, etc, let alone have them compile your D code and produce an executable that runs the way it should. I just don't understand why people can't work together. Life is too damn short.
I for one long for D tools in D. Thank you very much Aziz and Bernard for your efforts in this direction. I consider the initial choice of building a C++ front-end to be a dead-end. Even more since many D programmers precisely come to D out of C++ disgust. What would you, Caligo, recommand as an initiative for D to have tools the D community can easily and happily use *and* contribute to? What would be the ideal direction, process, sequence of actions, in your views? How would you personly engage in this, according to your own moral stances expressed above? Denis -- _________________ vita es estrany spir.wikidot.com
Mar 08 2011
prev sibling parent reply Caligo <iteronvexor gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 9:54 AM, spir <denis.spir gmail.com> wrote:

 On 03/08/2011 03:33 PM, Caligo wrote:

 On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Bernard Helyer<b.helyer gmail.com>
  wrote:

  On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 00:15:54 -0600, Caligo wrote:
  On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Bernard Helyer<b.helyer gmail.com>
 wrote:

  On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 20:41:39 -0600, Caligo wrote:
 Do we really need another D compiler that doesn't work?
Name me a working D2 compiler that doesn't have a front-end based based on DMD. Furthermore, name me an in progress independent implementation further along than SDC. The only candidate is Dil. SDC _will_ be finished, mark my words. Regards, Some one who remembers why they don't use the NG that much.
Yes, I know about dil, but I wonder why you chose not to contribute to dil instead of starting a new project. AFAIK dil is D1.
I know about Dil. aziz is great, the project is great. However, I know and want to use D2/Phobos. Plus, if I'm going to spend years on a project, I may as well use stuff I like. Furthermore, SDC didn't start out as a full compiler. Just playing around with lexing/parsing D. NIH syndrome, too.
I was aware of your "NIH syndrome", and that's why I have a problem with this. The main reason you are doing this is to serve your own needs, to make yourself feel good, to earn some kind of recognition, but not to serve the community in any meaningful way. Even if the project fails, it will look good on your resume because you took the time to develop a compiler. This kind of behavior is very common in the FOSS community, and it has become a disease. It's the reason why there are thousands of dead software projects that were never completed and maintained. I spoke with Aziz two years ago, and he had the same exact attitude. His excuse? He hates C++ and he thinks Walter's front end is horrible. So instead of contributing to ldc, he continued to work on his own compiler. After years of hard work, I doubt many would be willing to call dil a success. Instead of wasting all his time and energy on dil, Aziz could have contributed to ldc and ldc would have been in a much better shape today. And maybe, just maybe, today we would have a production quality free and open source D compiler that just works. Good luck trying to compile dil, ldc, etc, let alone have them compile your D code and produce an executable that runs the way it should. I just don't understand why people can't work together. Life is too damn short.
I for one long for D tools in D. Thank you very much Aziz and Bernard for your efforts in this direction. I consider the initial choice of building a C++ front-end to be a dead-end. Even more since many D programmers precisely come to D out of C++ disgust. What would you, Caligo, recommand as an initiative for D to have tools the D community can easily and happily use *and* contribute to? What would be the ideal direction, process, sequence of actions, in your views? How would you personly engage in this, according to your own moral stances expressed above? Denis -- _________________ vita es estrany spir.wikidot.com
I want to see people work together and not branch off and do their own thing when there is no good reason for it. We don't need to keep reinventing the wheel, specially when to this day we don't have a viable, production quality, free and open source alternative to DMD for D2. GDC could have been ready a long time ago, but it's not because development is moving very slow. So why start a new project and make an announcement about it when you could be helping out with GDC?
Mar 09 2011
parent Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> writes:
Am 10.03.2011 02:02, schrieb Caligo:
 On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 9:54 AM, spir <denis.spir gmail.com> wrote:
 
 On 03/08/2011 03:33 PM, Caligo wrote:

 On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Bernard Helyer<b.helyer gmail.com>
  wrote:

  On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 00:15:54 -0600, Caligo wrote:
  On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Bernard Helyer<b.helyer gmail.com>
 wrote:

  On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 20:41:39 -0600, Caligo wrote:
 Do we really need another D compiler that doesn't work?
Name me a working D2 compiler that doesn't have a front-end based based on DMD. Furthermore, name me an in progress independent implementation further along than SDC. The only candidate is Dil. SDC _will_ be finished, mark my words. Regards, Some one who remembers why they don't use the NG that much.
Yes, I know about dil, but I wonder why you chose not to contribute to dil instead of starting a new project. AFAIK dil is D1.
I know about Dil. aziz is great, the project is great. However, I know and want to use D2/Phobos. Plus, if I'm going to spend years on a project, I may as well use stuff I like. Furthermore, SDC didn't start out as a full compiler. Just playing around with lexing/parsing D. NIH syndrome, too.
I was aware of your "NIH syndrome", and that's why I have a problem with this. The main reason you are doing this is to serve your own needs, to make yourself feel good, to earn some kind of recognition, but not to serve the community in any meaningful way. Even if the project fails, it will look good on your resume because you took the time to develop a compiler. This kind of behavior is very common in the FOSS community, and it has become a disease. It's the reason why there are thousands of dead software projects that were never completed and maintained. I spoke with Aziz two years ago, and he had the same exact attitude. His excuse? He hates C++ and he thinks Walter's front end is horrible. So instead of contributing to ldc, he continued to work on his own compiler. After years of hard work, I doubt many would be willing to call dil a success. Instead of wasting all his time and energy on dil, Aziz could have contributed to ldc and ldc would have been in a much better shape today. And maybe, just maybe, today we would have a production quality free and open source D compiler that just works. Good luck trying to compile dil, ldc, etc, let alone have them compile your D code and produce an executable that runs the way it should. I just don't understand why people can't work together. Life is too damn short.
I for one long for D tools in D. Thank you very much Aziz and Bernard for your efforts in this direction. I consider the initial choice of building a C++ front-end to be a dead-end. Even more since many D programmers precisely come to D out of C++ disgust. What would you, Caligo, recommand as an initiative for D to have tools the D community can easily and happily use *and* contribute to? What would be the ideal direction, process, sequence of actions, in your views? How would you personly engage in this, according to your own moral stances expressed above? Denis -- _________________ vita es estrany spir.wikidot.com
I want to see people work together and not branch off and do their own thing when there is no good reason for it. We don't need to keep reinventing the wheel, specially when to this day we don't have a viable, production quality, free and open source alternative to DMD for D2. GDC could have been ready a long time ago, but it's not because development is moving very slow. So why start a new project and make an announcement about it when you could be helping out with GDC?
Why discuss the usefulness of n D compilers when *you* could be helping out with GDC?
Mar 09 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> writes:
Am 08.03.2011 03:41, schrieb Caligo:
 On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Bernard Helyer <b.helyer gmail.com
 <mailto:b.helyer gmail.com>> wrote:

     On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 20:03:36 +0000, filgood wrote:

      > as described here:
      >
      > http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/TypeSystemRewrite.txt
      >
      > Btw, what is the status of the D2 LLVM compiler?

     You're probably wondering about LDC2, but I'll chip in with SDC's
     ( https://github.com/bhelyer/SDC ) status here:

     On the road to some kind of 0.1, but a lot of work to be done -- it
     should land some time this year, however.

     Keeping current with DMD releases, current with LLVM releases.




 Do we really need another D compiler that doesn't work?
The more D compilers the better. Assuming that it won't work is quite insulting IMHO.
Mar 08 2011
parent spir <denis.spir gmail.com> writes:
On 03/08/2011 02:08 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote:
 Am 08.03.2011 03:41, schrieb Caligo:
 On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Bernard Helyer <b.helyer gmail.com
 <mailto:b.helyer gmail.com>> wrote:

 On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 20:03:36 +0000, filgood wrote:

 as described here:

 http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/TypeSystemRewrite.txt

 Btw, what is the status of the D2 LLVM compiler?
You're probably wondering about LDC2, but I'll chip in with SDC's ( https://github.com/bhelyer/SDC ) status here: On the road to some kind of 0.1, but a lot of work to be done -- it should land some time this year, however. Keeping current with DMD releases, current with LLVM releases. Do we really need another D compiler that doesn't work?
The more D compilers the better. Assuming that it won't work is quite insulting IMHO.
In addition, the fact it is in D is a huge advatange. D desperately needs a community lexer / parser / semantic analyser. Cannot be C++ stuff. Denis -- _________________ vita es estrany spir.wikidot.com
Mar 08 2011
prev sibling parent "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 21:41:39 -0500, Caligo <iteronvexor gmail.com> wrote:

 Do we really need another D compiler that doesn't work?
If we all took that attitude, no software would be written. All software "doesn't work" in the beginning. Let's see your perfect-from-inception projects... Please, find a more constructive outlet. -Steve
Mar 08 2011
prev sibling parent filgood <filgood somewhere.net> writes:
This is fantastic news! Many thanks for all your hard work. Not only 
seems LDC2 coming closer to be supporting the current D2, there is now 
SDC too (I must admit that a self hosting compiler (front end + LLVM 
back-end in D I mean) is a big statement for a language in my view). 
Please keep up the good work!

Although, I don't post on this NG much, I've been following it for a 
while, and if the increased diversification in people participating here 
verbally/code/project wise are representative, then I can only see the 
momentum that D as a language recently is gathering to be very exciting. 
I work at a company where I have a big influence on the programming 
languages to be used and have been porting some of our code to D as an 
experiment/me learning the language/reading TDPL - and I'm very pleased 
with the results so far...to a point that if it was not for a broader 
developed phobos (database access, messaging framework bindings (zeroMQ, 
google protobuffers, thrift), cross platform gui tool kits, etc) I would 
be keen to push the language for production usage at this point (knowing 
existing bugs in the compiler, but where I feel one can work around these).

Anyway, I just want this to be a message of support for D and great 
appreciation of what has been achieved so far.

thanks, fil

On 08/03/2011 01:54, Bernard Helyer wrote:
 On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 20:03:36 +0000, filgood wrote:

 as described here:

 http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/TypeSystemRewrite.txt

 Btw, what is the status of the D2 LLVM compiler?
You're probably wondering about LDC2, but I'll chip in with SDC's ( https://github.com/bhelyer/SDC ) status here: On the road to some kind of 0.1, but a lot of work to be done -- it should land some time this year, however. Keeping current with DMD releases, current with LLVM releases.
Mar 09 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent "Jason E. Aten" <j.e.aten gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 2:15 AM, Jens Mueller <jens.k.mueller gmx.de> wrote,
on the old thread titled "LLVM 3.0 type system changes"

 Can you talk me through the building process? I tried it a week ago but
 with no success. Can you post the necessary steps on this list or to me
 in private?
I can try to sketch the important aspects, but obviously this protocol hasn't been tested very widely, so feel free to post back any refinements. Even better if you want to patch the repositories. Some of these may be out of order, especially the CMakeCache.txt edits, so if anything goes wrong, check the variables mentioned below in CMakeCache.txt, and that your ldc2.conf is correct. Those are the most important two control files. I'll start a new thread with a new title to make this easy to find, and more on topic. I. Acknowledgements Heavy credit for this is due to mrmonday on #ldc who guided me and graciously offered assistance. Errors and typos are mine alone. I. Protocol: "Building LDC2 on Linux x86_64, as of Feb 28 2011": II. Protcol: Building LDC2 on Linux x86_64. Prereqs: cmake, git, hg, llvm2.8 from source already installed (package installs of llvm2.8 might work too, I don't know). # 1) Check out ldc2, druntime, and phobos2: $ hg clone https://bitbucket.org/prokhin_alexey/ldc2 $ cd ldc2 $ git clone https://github.com/AlexeyProkhin/druntime $ git clone https://github.com/AlexeyProkhin/phobos # 2) Configure (apparently you can also use ccmake with gui, but I didn't)$ cmake . # 3) Fix up the CMakeCache.txt file: # 3 a) edit CMakeCache.txt by hand, and set D_VERSION to 2, as on these two lines: ... //D language version - will originally be set to 1, change it to 2 like this: D_VERSION:STRING=2 ... # 3 b) check on the variables mentioned in 3 d). I don't think that they will be present yet, but if they aren't, it can't hurt to fix them now as well. # 3 c) make (this should hopefully build bin/ldc2 now ) $ make # there will be some const warnings, but the build finishes for me. # 3 d) edit CMakeCache.txt again (it will have changed/had appendixes now I think) and fix these two variables: ... //runtime source dir RUNTIME_DIR:PATH=/home/jaten/pkg/ldc2/ldc2/druntime ... //phobos2 source dir PHOBOS2_DIR:PATH=/home/jaten/pkg/ldc2/ldc2/phobos ... # 4) modify your your .bashrc to set PATH to include ./bin in front of everything else echo "export PATH=`pwd`/bin:\$PATH" >> ~/.bashrc . ~/.bashrc which ldc2 # should show the one in ./bin now # 5) build druntime and phobos with the command: make phobos2 $ make phobos2 # 6) edit ./bin/ldc2.conf so that it points to the right places. Here is a copy of mine that seems to work. The point of the editing is to make sure that paths are correct, especially the third -I (Include line), which was often wrong out of the box when I was working with it. jaten dfw:~$ cat ldc2.conf // This configuration file uses libconfig. // See http://www.hyperrealm.com/libconfig/ for syntax details. // The default group is required default: { // 'switches' holds array of string that are appends to the command line // arguments before they are parsed. switches = [ "-I/home/jaten/pkg/llvm+lldb+ldc/prokhin_alexeys_ldc2/ldc2/druntime/import", "-I/home/jaten/pkg/llvm+lldb+ldc/prokhin_alexeys_ldc2/ldc2/druntime/src", "-I/home/jaten/pkg/llvm+lldb+ldc/prokhin_alexeys_ldc2/ldc2/phobos/", "-L-L/home/jaten/pkg/llvm+lldb+ldc/prokhin_alexeys_ldc2/ldc2/runtime/../lib", "-defaultlib=phobos2", "-debuglib=phobos2" ]; }; jaten dfw:~$ # 7) Finished. Test and note variances from the protocol above. III. Appendix: Trouble shooting notes If anything goes wrong, in my experience it was due to the settings in either CMakeCache.txt, or in ./bin/ldc2.conf Those are the two places I would look at first when troubleshooting. A) When you edit the CMakeCache.txt, be sure to check that PHOBOS2_DIR gets set to ./phobos and not ../druntime # example that works: jaten dfw:~$ cat CMakeCache.txt.afarm_works_ldc2 | grep PHOBOS2_DIR PHOBOS2_DIR:PATH=/home/jaten/pkg/llvm+lldb+ldc/prokhin_alexeys_ldc2/ldc2/phobos # example that DOES NOT work: jaten dfw:~$ cat CMakeCache.txt.dfw_notwork_ldc2 | grep PHOBOS2_DIR PHOBOS2_DIR:PATH=/home/jaten/pkg/ldc2/ldc2/../druntime B) Be sure in CMakeCache.txt you have these three variables set correctly, with obvious edits for your paths, not mine: ... //D language version D_VERSION:STRING=2 ... //runtime source dir RUNTIME_DIR:PATH=/home/jaten/pkg/ldc2/ldc2/druntime ... //phobos2 source dir PHOBOS2_DIR:PATH=/home/jaten/pkg/ldc2/ldc2/phobos
Mar 08 2011
prev sibling parent "Jason E. Aten" <j.e.aten gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Jason E. Aten <j.e.aten gmail.com> wrote:

 I. Protocol:  "Building LDC2 on Linux x86_64":
Please see the new thread titled, "how to build LDC2 on linux x86_64". There is already one correction posted there already. My apologies: I didn't mean to replicate this in both threads. A typo keypress posted it here before it was ready. Please make any refinements on how to install LDC2 on that thread. Thanks! Jason
Mar 08 2011