On Sunday, 7 June 2015 at 08:59:46 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
I wouldn't have thought that not moving to 2.067 would be a
hold-up (there
is nothing in that release that blocks building DDMD as it is
*now*).
The biggest problem is that releasing a ddmd which is compiled
with dmd is unacceptable, because it incurs too large a
performance hit (~20% IIRC), so we need either ldc or gdc to be
at 2.067 so that we can use that to compile the release build of
ddmd.
But
I have been promised time and again that there will be more
effort
(infrastructure?) put in to help get LDC and GDC integrated
into the testing process for all new PRs.
That would be good, though I don't know what the situation with
that is. However, I think that Daniel's top priority at this
point is getting the frontend to the point that it's
backend-agnostic and thus identical for all three backends, which
should greatly help in having gdc and ldc keep up with dmd. That
obviously wouldn't obviate the need for testing gdc and ldc, but
it would reduce the effort to update them and maintain them.
- Jonathan M Davis
