www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.ldc - Towards 0.12.0; release an alpha now?

reply David Nadlinger <code klickverbot.at> writes:
Hi all,

The biggest problem we are facing right now is arguably that there
hasn't been a proper binary release of LDC for almost four months.

The reason for not making any progress on that front has mainly been
that there are a couple of serious issues that occur only relatively
rarely, but are hard to fix, such as:
https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/issues/407

But while I am not really comfortable with doing a release while
issues such as this are still unresolved, I think it is vital that we
at least have binaries available for people who want to test/use LDC
in its current state, featuring the 2.063 frontend and a couple of
critical fixes for MinGW.

As #407 is the only potentially huge regression I'm aware of, (the
-march/-mcpu issue has been sorted out) I propose to release an alpha
version based off current Git master. If the remaining issues turn out
to be not so much of a problem, we can release 0.12.0 (at least one
beta as usual) shortly after that.

This would also make sense as 2.064 will probably come out fairly
soon, and people will expect us to support shared libraries (which I
know how to implement, but we really want the 2.064 druntime changes
to avoid duplicating work).

What do you think? I'll start work on getting alpha packages out, but
wait for other opinions before I officially put them up.

Cheers,
David
Oct 06 2013
next sibling parent reply Benjamin Thaut <code benjamin-thaut.de> writes:
Am 06.10.2013 21:42, schrieb David Nadlinger:
 Hi all,

 The biggest problem we are facing right now is arguably that there
 hasn't been a proper binary release of LDC for almost four months.

 The reason for not making any progress on that front has mainly been
 that there are a couple of serious issues that occur only relatively
 rarely, but are hard to fix, such as:
 https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/issues/407

 But while I am not really comfortable with doing a release while
 issues such as this are still unresolved, I think it is vital that we
 at least have binaries available for people who want to test/use LDC
 in its current state, featuring the 2.063 frontend and a couple of
 critical fixes for MinGW.

 As #407 is the only potentially huge regression I'm aware of, (the
 -march/-mcpu issue has been sorted out) I propose to release an alpha
 version based off current Git master. If the remaining issues turn out
 to be not so much of a problem, we can release 0.12.0 (at least one
 beta as usual) shortly after that.

 This would also make sense as 2.064 will probably come out fairly
 soon, and people will expect us to support shared libraries (which I
 know how to implement, but we really want the 2.064 druntime changes
 to avoid duplicating work).

 What do you think? I'll start work on getting alpha packages out, but
 wait for other opinions before I officially put them up.

 Cheers,
 David
A binary release would be great. I would also greatly appreciate a new windows x64 build even in a unstable form. Issue 407 doesn't look that critical to me, because if you really need associative arrays you wrote your own by now considering how many issues there are with the druntime implementation of AAs. Has there been any further progress on windows x64 exception handling? Kind Regards Benjamin Thaut
Oct 07 2013
next sibling parent reply David Nadlinger <code klickverbot.at> writes:
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Benjamin Thaut <code benjamin-thaut.de> wrote:
 A binary release would be great. I would also greatly appreciate a new
 windows x64 build even in a unstable form. Issue 407 doesn't look that
 critical to me, because if you really need associative arrays you wrote your
 own by now considering how many issues there are with the druntime
 implementation of AAs.
Kai: IIRC you had a script for making MSVC-based binary packages somewhere?
 Has there been any further progress on windows x64 exception handling?
Defines on what you mean by "further": https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/issues/166 David
Oct 07 2013
next sibling parent "Temtaime" <temtaime gmail.com> writes:
I made an LDC binary using MSVC. It works successfully and can 
compile druntime, phobos and others. The most problem is that 
MSVC runtime doesn't have DWARF exceptions, i removed it and when 
exception is occur the program crashes.

It will be great if someone remove dwarf at all.
Oct 07 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "Temtaime" <temtaime gmail.com> writes:
Also i hope that i can port LDC to DMD's frontend from GIT HEAD.
Oct 07 2013
prev sibling parent "Kai Nacke" <kai redstar.de> writes:
On Monday, 7 October 2013 at 15:14:28 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
  Kai: IIRC you had a script for making MSVC-based binary 
 packages somewhere?
Sorry, no. I played with the "Advanced Installer" but there is still more work needed. Kai
Oct 07 2013
prev sibling parent reply "Kai Nacke" <kai redstar.de> writes:
On Monday, 7 October 2013 at 07:07:12 UTC, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
 Has there been any further progress on windows x64 exception 
 handling?
Hi Benjamin! There is some progress but not too much. My LLVM patch for EH handling had 5 parts and of these 5 parts only 3 passed the review and I could commit them. For the remaining 2 parts: - a convincing argument for the LLVM reviewers would be clang support - there is a bug in the stack alignment code which leads to compile time failures - dead epilogue code is still removed which leads to runtime crashes On LDC side exception chaining is not implemented (but this is not a major issue compared with the other topics). I am still working on these topics - I currently try to fix the stack alignment issue. Kai
Oct 07 2013
parent Benjamin Thaut <code benjamin-thaut.de> writes:
Am 08.10.2013 07:21, schrieb Kai Nacke:
 On Monday, 7 October 2013 at 07:07:12 UTC, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
 Has there been any further progress on windows x64 exception handling?
Hi Benjamin! There is some progress but not too much. My LLVM patch for EH handling had 5 parts and of these 5 parts only 3 passed the review and I could commit them. For the remaining 2 parts: - a convincing argument for the LLVM reviewers would be clang support - there is a bug in the stack alignment code which leads to compile time failures - dead epilogue code is still removed which leads to runtime crashes On LDC side exception chaining is not implemented (but this is not a major issue compared with the other topics). I am still working on these topics - I currently try to fix the stack alignment issue. Kai
Hi, thank you very much for the update and all your work. I still hope that LDC will become my compiler of choice for Windows x64. Currently dmd is the only viable option for this plattform because the last working GDC release still uses the 2.060 frontend.
Oct 07 2013
prev sibling parent "Kai Nacke" <kai redstar.de> writes:
On Sunday, 6 October 2013 at 19:42:24 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
 What do you think? I'll start work on getting alpha packages 
 out, but
 wait for other opinions before I officially put them up.
If we can't fix the hard issues right now then we should do a release. Better a release with documented bugs then no release at all. Kai
Oct 07 2013