On 1/23/2011 9:56 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote: > == 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.
Lists: http://lists.puremagic.com I like the summary of problems, I dislike that it's more than one report per bug. It makes dealing with them a royal pain. One issue per bug please.
