On 12 December 2013 23:01, Joseph Rushton Wakeling <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thursday, 12 December 2013 at 22:46:26 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: >> >> On 12/6/2013 4:13 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: >>> >>> So, that means that if you need the ability to get fast turnaround on >>> bugfixes >>> or new features, you HAVE to run DMD. >> >> >> Or, you could contribute to the gdc and ldc projects! > > > Well, when I first contributed to Phobos I looked into getting the same > patches accepted into GDC, not least because I wanted the functionality for > my own work. It wasn't really a workable thing to do, both because of the > lack of common git history and because GDC (as LDC) works by matching the > features of the current stable release -- so adding stuff only available via > git-HEAD Phobos wasn't really an option. >
Well patches that go into phobos will soon hit gdc (eventually) - and there's nothing wrong with cherry picking much needed patches prior to release, if you can't wait 6 months for the next release and your bug to be fixed. Of course, what you can't guarantee is if fixing a bug in phobos has some dependency on semantic changes/but fixed in the frontend. > That situation would be much different if the frontend were truly common > across all backends. It's not too bad nowadays, I'll update the differences list sometime today, but the only notable differences now between the two are: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/2694 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/2200 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/2176 Where unless #2694 is applied, gdc will FTBFS. And unless #2200 and #2176 are applied, gdc will ICE when compiling certain code. Regards Iain.
