On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 14:33:34 UTC, qznc wrote:
On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 11:40:12 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
1) Is there some perspective on D getting a defined ABI that
works with all major D compilers?
2) What would the D community recommend on how to deal with
the ABI issues currently? A Linux distribution is a bunch of
tightly integrated software, and changing one piece in an
incompatible way (e.g. by building it with LDC instead of DMD)
will have consequences.
3) Will DMD support more architectures in the near future?
How should the architecture issue be handled?
My prediction for Walters reply:
1) No. Not worth it, because templates, ctfe, etc.
That's short-sighted IMHO, because if the template doesn't
change, ABI/API doesn't change. Also, some projects use D as
better C and don't expose this functionality. It should be up to
the project to set the level of API/ABI stability, and not to the
compiler to make everything unstable by default.
[...]
Tentative ping, but that Wiki page is not helpful. The linked
svn repo is empty. Where and how do you work?
Yeah, the page is really poor, it was last touched in 2012. I
made a few updates to at least link to the current Git repo.
We generally work on various Git repositories, but not all of
them are run by the D team (e.g. libundead and libbiod as well as
several games are things I am aware of that aren't D-team
maintained but are part of other team's work).
One can find all stuff using D by testing the
reverse-build-depends on the LDC and GDC compilers.
I guess the issue are still the same as you wrote here (except
1. is solved):
https://gist.github.com/ximion/fe6264481319dd94c8308b1ea4e8207a
So, mostly dub needs work, I guess.
Yes, but since Meson is working well and Meson scripts are easy
to write, it's not a super high priority item anymore.
As I said earlier, work as a distribution developer is pretty
much always about reducing long-term maintenance cost, and not
about less work short-term, which means we will gladly write
Meson or Automake scripts to integrate software into Debian if
there is a demand for it.
On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 15:11:01 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 11:40:12 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
3) Will DMD support more architectures in the near future?
How should the architecture issue be handled?
This can be definitively answered as "no",
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15108
*Walter Bright*:
Doing an ARM back end wouldn't be that hard. It's much less
complex than x86. Most of the work would be deleting about half
of the x86 code generator :-)
:D - doesn't sound like a flat-out no, much more like there just
wasn't someone doing the work yet.
