== Quote from Brad Roberts ([email protected])'s article > On 1/22/2011 4:32 PM, Robert Clipsham wrote: > > On 22/01/11 23:58, bioinfornatics wrote: > >> They are something wrong with druntime management!!! > >> Why druntime do not support gdc or ldc2? > >> Its is very crap thing i hope druntime will add soon gdc support. We can send > >> ldc and gdc patch. > >> Thanks for all > >> > >> best regards > > > > I've been talking to you on IRC about this, but I'll reiterate it here for > > everyone elses benefit. Having support for each compiler in druntime is a > > bad > > idea. This is what druntime did initially when it was forked from tango. The > > trouble was that as the compiler got updated, the runtime needed to be updated > > too, and the compiler and runtime became out of sync very easily, and > > getting > > everything up to date again was a pain. > > > > The solution to this is to have each compiler maintain its own druntime > > compiler-specifics, and have the non-compiler-specific code in a main druntime > > repository - this way all that is needed is to copy/paste the compiler specific > > code into druntime. This works, as when the compiler is updated, so is the > > compiler-specific portion of druntime and nothing gets out of sync. > > > > Of course, a lot of druntime isn't compiler specific, for these parts > > patches > > should probably be applied. I'm not entirely sure where gdc and ldc are with > > respect to this kind of patch, I know they both have complete druntime > > implementations, but I'm sure if this kind of patch was made (preferably in > > smaller, individual patches for each feature/bug etc) it would be applied. > > > > Of course, this is just the situation as I see it, and from memory, the druntime > > folk will probably chime in and give the full story. > > > Personally, I'd like to see one common runtime, but to achieve that requires > that the compiler/runtime interface be essentially the same between the > compilers. That's an achievable goal, but it has to actually be an agreed > upon > goal. Today, both gdc and ldc's interface with the runtime don't match dmd's. > So, where do they differ today? Why? Can they evolve to a common interface? > I'll happily apply patches from anyone providing them that work to achieve > that > goal. Please use bugzilla to submit them. > One implied part of this goal is that dmd is, while an important stake holder, > needs to play nice too. Changes need to go through a discussion round before > being made.. no unilateral changes. > Also, this discussion should probably drift over to the > [email protected] > mailing list.. at least the parts that are directly related to accomplishing the > changes. > My 2 cents, > Brad
I'm not sure where to find / subscribe to the mailing list, so I posted here: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5478 Regards.
