"Iain Buclaw" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > 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.
Well, you know how I feel about 2594. If you merge that ddmd will FTBFS.
