On Saturday, 9 March 2013 at 09:11:54 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote:
Am Thu, 07 Mar 2013 19:53:29 +0400
schrieb Denis Shelomovskij <[email protected]>:
07.03.2013 14:28, Jacob Carlborg пишет:
> On 2013-03-07 11:12, Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
>
>> Sorry if this has been answered before/is common knowledge,
>> but is
>> porting functions at a time to C wanted for optlink in
>> general, or
>> only for finding segfaults? (e.g. are pull-requests for that
>> welcome)
>
> Yes, in general. I think the idea is to port the whole
> Optlink to C
> and then to D. It's easier to port from C to D than from
> assembly
> to D. This is because you can use a C version that doesn't
> use the
> runtime or standard library to get the generate assembly as
> close
> as possible to the original one. I think it was something
> like that.
>
Didn't get. You don't have to use D with druntime. Just don't
link it and everything will be OK - you will just get "better
C" (i.e. with D structs and other good stuff).
That's a little bit oversimplified. Even a simple POD struct
references
the TypeInfo_Struct declaration in druntime. There's still some
compiler work needed to really make D usable without druntime.
(Think
of issues like these: If you don't have druntime -> you don't
have
typeinfo -> no D style varargs -> no associative arrays; you
can't even
compare normal arrays
(https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/blob/e47a00bff935c3f079bb567a6ec97663ba384487/src/rt/adi.d#L368))
It can be easily checked with "-betterC -defaultlib=" combo. You
can skip phobos, druntime, use only C stdlib and look what will
remain working in the language. Not much.
