On 25 August 2015 at 23:25, rsw0x via Digitalmars-d-announce <
> On Tuesday, 25 August 2015 at 21:14:39 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>> On 25 August 2015 at 22:42, NVolcz via Digitalmars-d-announce <
>> firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> I don't think this would work as well with the less active compilers.
>> Partly because (gdc) only really goes through a major overhaul/change once
>> every six months, depending on how long the next release of DMD has been in
>> development. Also the whole process is less driven by dealing with bug
>> reports and more driven by feature/optimization topics that I'm sure would
>> fly over most people's heads.
> The work done on GDC is well appreciated, GDC's codebase is much cleaner
> now than it was before the refactoring.
True, and it will only get more cleaner as each section is rewritten. But
no one personally congratulates you on refactoring code (I have been
spearheading a push to remove all dmd-backend-isms from gdc. It took about
3 months work to make expression (toElem) codegen to be stateless, and
remove the dmd-specific 'backend IR state' (IRState) struct from the
codebase. And that is barely 1/8 of what needs to be done to prepare the
move to 2.067)