www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - druntime !!!!

reply bioinfornatics <bioinfornatics fedoraproject.org> writes:
They are something wrong with druntime management!!!
Why druntime do not support gdc or ldc2?
Its is very crap thing i hope druntime will add soon gdc support. We can send
ldc and gdc patch.
Thanks for all

best regards
Jan 22 2011
next sibling parent reply Robert Clipsham <robert octarineparrot.com> writes:
On 22/01/11 23:58, bioinfornatics wrote:
 They are something wrong with druntime management!!!
 Why druntime do not support gdc or ldc2?
 Its is very crap thing i hope druntime will add soon gdc support. We can send
ldc and gdc patch.
 Thanks for all

 best regards

I've been talking to you on IRC about this, but I'll reiterate it here for everyone elses benefit. Having support for each compiler in druntime is a bad idea. This is what druntime did initially when it was forked from tango. The trouble was that as the compiler got updated, the runtime needed to be updated too, and the compiler and runtime became out of sync very easily, and getting everything up to date again was a pain. The solution to this is to have each compiler maintain its own druntime compiler-specifics, and have the non-compiler-specific code in a main druntime repository - this way all that is needed is to copy/paste the compiler specific code into druntime. This works, as when the compiler is updated, so is the compiler-specific portion of druntime and nothing gets out of sync. Of course, a lot of druntime isn't compiler specific, for these parts patches should probably be applied. I'm not entirely sure where gdc and ldc are with respect to this kind of patch, I know they both have complete druntime implementations, but I'm sure if this kind of patch was made (preferably in smaller, individual patches for each feature/bug etc) it would be applied. Of course, this is just the situation as I see it, and from memory, the druntime folk will probably chime in and give the full story. -- Robert http://octarineparrot.com/
Jan 22 2011
next sibling parent Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> writes:
Am 23.01.2011 01:32, schrieb Robert Clipsham:
 On 22/01/11 23:58, bioinfornatics wrote:
 They are something wrong with druntime management!!!
 Why druntime do not support gdc or ldc2?
 Its is very crap thing i hope druntime will add soon gdc support. We
 can send ldc and gdc patch.
 Thanks for all

 best regards

I've been talking to you on IRC about this, but I'll reiterate it here for everyone elses benefit. Having support for each compiler in druntime is a bad idea. This is what druntime did initially when it was forked from tango. The trouble was that as the compiler got updated, the runtime needed to be updated too, and the compiler and runtime became out of sync very easily, and getting everything up to date again was a pain. The solution to this is to have each compiler maintain its own druntime compiler-specifics, and have the non-compiler-specific code in a main druntime repository - this way all that is needed is to copy/paste the compiler specific code into druntime. This works, as when the compiler is updated, so is the compiler-specific portion of druntime and nothing gets out of sync. Of course, a lot of druntime isn't compiler specific, for these parts patches should probably be applied. I'm not entirely sure where gdc and ldc are with respect to this kind of patch, I know they both have complete druntime implementations, but I'm sure if this kind of patch was made (preferably in smaller, individual patches for each feature/bug etc) it would be applied. Of course, this is just the situation as I see it, and from memory, the druntime folk will probably chime in and give the full story.

I think you're right and of course this makes sense. I think we had this discussion before, but I can't find the thread. A further note: As far as I know D's (dmd, phobos, druntime) development will soon move to git - maintaining compiler specific versions of druntime will probably be a lot easier then. Cheers, - Daniel
Jan 22 2011
prev sibling parent reply Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> writes:
On 1/22/2011 4:32 PM, Robert Clipsham wrote:
 On 22/01/11 23:58, bioinfornatics wrote:
 They are something wrong with druntime management!!!
 Why druntime do not support gdc or ldc2?
 Its is very crap thing i hope druntime will add soon gdc support. We can send
 ldc and gdc patch.
 Thanks for all

 best regards

I've been talking to you on IRC about this, but I'll reiterate it here for everyone elses benefit. Having support for each compiler in druntime is a bad idea. This is what druntime did initially when it was forked from tango. The trouble was that as the compiler got updated, the runtime needed to be updated too, and the compiler and runtime became out of sync very easily, and getting everything up to date again was a pain. The solution to this is to have each compiler maintain its own druntime compiler-specifics, and have the non-compiler-specific code in a main druntime repository - this way all that is needed is to copy/paste the compiler specific code into druntime. This works, as when the compiler is updated, so is the compiler-specific portion of druntime and nothing gets out of sync. Of course, a lot of druntime isn't compiler specific, for these parts patches should probably be applied. I'm not entirely sure where gdc and ldc are with respect to this kind of patch, I know they both have complete druntime implementations, but I'm sure if this kind of patch was made (preferably in smaller, individual patches for each feature/bug etc) it would be applied. Of course, this is just the situation as I see it, and from memory, the druntime folk will probably chime in and give the full story.

Personally, I'd like to see one common runtime, but to achieve that requires that the compiler/runtime interface be essentially the same between the compilers. That's an achievable goal, but it has to actually be an agreed upon goal. Today, both gdc and ldc's interface with the runtime don't match dmd's. So, where do they differ today? Why? Can they evolve to a common interface? I'll happily apply patches from anyone providing them that work to achieve that goal. Please use bugzilla to submit them. One implied part of this goal is that dmd is, while an important stake holder, needs to play nice too. Changes need to go through a discussion round before being made.. no unilateral changes. Also, this discussion should probably drift over to the d-runtime puremagic.com mailing list.. at least the parts that are directly related to accomplishing the changes. My 2 cents, Brad
Jan 22 2011
parent reply Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> writes:
== Quote from Brad Roberts (braddr puremagic.com)'s article
 On 1/22/2011 4:32 PM, Robert Clipsham wrote:
 On 22/01/11 23:58, bioinfornatics wrote:
 They are something wrong with druntime management!!!
 Why druntime do not support gdc or ldc2?
 Its is very crap thing i hope druntime will add soon gdc support. We can



 ldc and gdc patch.
 Thanks for all

 best regards

I've been talking to you on IRC about this, but I'll reiterate it here for everyone elses benefit. Having support for each compiler in druntime is a bad idea. This is what druntime did initially when it was forked from tango. The trouble was that as the compiler got updated, the runtime needed to be


 too, and the compiler and runtime became out of sync very easily, and getting
 everything up to date again was a pain.

 The solution to this is to have each compiler maintain its own druntime
 compiler-specifics, and have the non-compiler-specific code in a main


 repository - this way all that is needed is to copy/paste the compiler


 code into druntime. This works, as when the compiler is updated, so is the
 compiler-specific portion of druntime and nothing gets out of sync.

 Of course, a lot of druntime isn't compiler specific, for these parts patches
 should probably be applied. I'm not entirely sure where gdc and ldc are with
 respect to this kind of patch, I know they both have complete druntime
 implementations, but I'm sure if this kind of patch was made (preferably in
 smaller, individual patches for each feature/bug etc) it would be applied.

 Of course, this is just the situation as I see it, and from memory, the


 folk will probably chime in and give the full story.

that the compiler/runtime interface be essentially the same between the compilers. That's an achievable goal, but it has to actually be an agreed upon goal. Today, both gdc and ldc's interface with the runtime don't match dmd's. So, where do they differ today? Why? Can they evolve to a common interface? I'll happily apply patches from anyone providing them that work to achieve that goal. Please use bugzilla to submit them. One implied part of this goal is that dmd is, while an important stake holder, needs to play nice too. Changes need to go through a discussion round before being made.. no unilateral changes. Also, this discussion should probably drift over to the d-runtime puremagic.com mailing list.. at least the parts that are directly related to accomplishing

 changes.
 My 2 cents,
 Brad

I'm not sure where to find / subscribe to the mailing list, so I posted here: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5478 Regards.
Jan 23 2011
next sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2011-01-23 18:56, Iain Buclaw wrote:
 == Quote from Brad Roberts (braddr puremagic.com)'s article
 On 1/22/2011 4:32 PM, Robert Clipsham wrote:
 On 22/01/11 23:58, bioinfornatics wrote:
 They are something wrong with druntime management!!!
 Why druntime do not support gdc or ldc2?
 Its is very crap thing i hope druntime will add soon gdc support. We can



 ldc and gdc patch.
 Thanks for all

 best regards

I've been talking to you on IRC about this, but I'll reiterate it here for everyone elses benefit. Having support for each compiler in druntime is a bad idea. This is what druntime did initially when it was forked from tango. The trouble was that as the compiler got updated, the runtime needed to be


 too, and the compiler and runtime became out of sync very easily, and getting
 everything up to date again was a pain.

 The solution to this is to have each compiler maintain its own druntime
 compiler-specifics, and have the non-compiler-specific code in a main


 repository - this way all that is needed is to copy/paste the compiler


 code into druntime. This works, as when the compiler is updated, so is the
 compiler-specific portion of druntime and nothing gets out of sync.

 Of course, a lot of druntime isn't compiler specific, for these parts patches
 should probably be applied. I'm not entirely sure where gdc and ldc are with
 respect to this kind of patch, I know they both have complete druntime
 implementations, but I'm sure if this kind of patch was made (preferably in
 smaller, individual patches for each feature/bug etc) it would be applied.

 Of course, this is just the situation as I see it, and from memory, the


 folk will probably chime in and give the full story.

that the compiler/runtime interface be essentially the same between the compilers. That's an achievable goal, but it has to actually be an agreed upon goal. Today, both gdc and ldc's interface with the runtime don't match dmd's. So, where do they differ today? Why? Can they evolve to a common interface? I'll happily apply patches from anyone providing them that work to achieve that goal. Please use bugzilla to submit them. One implied part of this goal is that dmd is, while an important stake holder, needs to play nice too. Changes need to go through a discussion round before being made.. no unilateral changes. Also, this discussion should probably drift over to the d-runtime puremagic.com mailing list.. at least the parts that are directly related to accomplishing

 changes.
 My 2 cents,
 Brad

I'm not sure where to find / subscribe to the mailing list, so I posted here: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5478 Regards.

For some reason it's not listed on the Digitalmars site with the rest of the mailing lists but here's the address: http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/d-runtime -- /Jacob Carlborg
Jan 23 2011
prev sibling parent Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> writes:
== Quote from Brad Roberts (braddr puremagic.com)'s article
 On 1/23/2011 9:56 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
 == Quote from Brad Roberts (braddr puremagic.com)'s article
 On 1/22/2011 4:32 PM, Robert Clipsham wrote:
 On 22/01/11 23:58, bioinfornatics wrote:
 They are something wrong with druntime management!!!
 Why druntime do not support gdc or ldc2?
 Its is very crap thing i hope druntime will add soon gdc support. We can



 ldc and gdc patch.
 Thanks for all

 best regards

I've been talking to you on IRC about this, but I'll reiterate it here for everyone elses benefit. Having support for each compiler in druntime is a




 idea. This is what druntime did initially when it was forked from tango.




 trouble was that as the compiler got updated, the runtime needed to be


 too, and the compiler and runtime became out of sync very easily, and




 everything up to date again was a pain.

 The solution to this is to have each compiler maintain its own druntime
 compiler-specifics, and have the non-compiler-specific code in a main


 repository - this way all that is needed is to copy/paste the compiler


 code into druntime. This works, as when the compiler is updated, so is the
 compiler-specific portion of druntime and nothing gets out of sync.

 Of course, a lot of druntime isn't compiler specific, for these parts




 should probably be applied. I'm not entirely sure where gdc and ldc are




 respect to this kind of patch, I know they both have complete druntime
 implementations, but I'm sure if this kind of patch was made (preferably in
 smaller, individual patches for each feature/bug etc) it would be applied.

 Of course, this is just the situation as I see it, and from memory, the


 folk will probably chime in and give the full story.

that the compiler/runtime interface be essentially the same between the compilers. That's an achievable goal, but it has to actually be an agreed



 goal.  Today, both gdc and ldc's interface with the runtime don't match



 So, where do they differ today?  Why?  Can they evolve to a common



 I'll happily apply patches from anyone providing them that work to achieve



 goal.  Please use bugzilla to submit them.
 One implied part of this goal is that dmd is, while an important stake



 needs to play nice too.  Changes need to go through a discussion round



 being made.. no unilateral changes.
 Also, this discussion should probably drift over to the d-



 mailing list.. at least the parts that are directly related to accomplishing

 changes.
 My 2 cents,
 Brad

I'm not sure where to find / subscribe to the mailing list, so I posted here: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5478 Regards.


OK, thanks. I'll get signed up there.
 I like the summary of problems, I dislike that it's more than one report per
 bug.  It makes dealing with them a royal pain.  One issue per bug please.

It's a follow-on from the report Thomas made back in 2007, as DMD's library calls have changed since. GDC haven't changed at all with the exception of one or two additions to the list for D2. Regards
Jan 23 2011
prev sibling parent Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> writes:
On 1/23/2011 9:56 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
 == Quote from Brad Roberts (braddr puremagic.com)'s article
 On 1/22/2011 4:32 PM, Robert Clipsham wrote:
 On 22/01/11 23:58, bioinfornatics wrote:
 They are something wrong with druntime management!!!
 Why druntime do not support gdc or ldc2?
 Its is very crap thing i hope druntime will add soon gdc support. We can



 ldc and gdc patch.
 Thanks for all

 best regards

I've been talking to you on IRC about this, but I'll reiterate it here for everyone elses benefit. Having support for each compiler in druntime is a bad idea. This is what druntime did initially when it was forked from tango. The trouble was that as the compiler got updated, the runtime needed to be


 too, and the compiler and runtime became out of sync very easily, and getting
 everything up to date again was a pain.

 The solution to this is to have each compiler maintain its own druntime
 compiler-specifics, and have the non-compiler-specific code in a main


 repository - this way all that is needed is to copy/paste the compiler


 code into druntime. This works, as when the compiler is updated, so is the
 compiler-specific portion of druntime and nothing gets out of sync.

 Of course, a lot of druntime isn't compiler specific, for these parts patches
 should probably be applied. I'm not entirely sure where gdc and ldc are with
 respect to this kind of patch, I know they both have complete druntime
 implementations, but I'm sure if this kind of patch was made (preferably in
 smaller, individual patches for each feature/bug etc) it would be applied.

 Of course, this is just the situation as I see it, and from memory, the


 folk will probably chime in and give the full story.

that the compiler/runtime interface be essentially the same between the compilers. That's an achievable goal, but it has to actually be an agreed upon goal. Today, both gdc and ldc's interface with the runtime don't match dmd's. So, where do they differ today? Why? Can they evolve to a common interface? I'll happily apply patches from anyone providing them that work to achieve that goal. Please use bugzilla to submit them. One implied part of this goal is that dmd is, while an important stake holder, needs to play nice too. Changes need to go through a discussion round before being made.. no unilateral changes. Also, this discussion should probably drift over to the d-runtime puremagic.com mailing list.. at least the parts that are directly related to accomplishing

 changes.
 My 2 cents,
 Brad

I'm not sure where to find / subscribe to the mailing list, so I posted here: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5478 Regards.

Lists: http://lists.puremagic.com I like the summary of problems, I dislike that it's more than one report per bug. It makes dealing with them a royal pain. One issue per bug please.
Jan 23 2011