On 11 April 2017 at 20:13, David Nadlinger via Digitalmars-d <[email protected]> wrote: > On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 22:36:39 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: >> >> All the regression fixes and none of the bugs! > > > That's an interesting approach (spoken with British language sensibilities). > > Is anybody using GDC on a big "modern" D2 codebase (metaprogramming-heavy, > …) right now? From my experience with Thrift, Weka, and so on, even > regression fixes have a habit of breaking that sort of code in weird and > wonderful ways. And that's not even mentioning other > improvements/fixes/additions people might be relying on. > > Right now, the frontend version serves as a convenient aid for users to > navigate those issues (apart, of course, from us trying to improve things by > making semantic analysis more deterministic, etc). If something works on DMD > 2.072.2, then users can also expect it to work on the corresponding LDC > version as well. I'm not sure you are helping anybody by introducing another > set of weird in-between versions. > > — David
And DMD didn't help by switching codebase to D without first ironing out all implementation regressions and interoperability. Every release between 2.069 and 2.074 is a broken release as far I'm concerned. The most recent is getting closer, but there are likely still many things missing that need to be exposed to C++ (mostly ::create functions).
