"Andrej Mitrovic" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On 6/12/11, Nick Sabalausky <[email protected]> wrote: >> "Andrei Alexandrescu" <[email protected]> wrote in message >> news:[email protected]... >>> >>> I've always wondered what's the methodology of changing ddmd from diffs >>> in >>> >>> dmd. I can only imagine it as a difficult manual process. >>> >> >> I've recently asked about that on the DDMD forum. No response yet, but >> it's >> not really a high-traffic forum anyway: >> http://www.dsource.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5946&sid=4ece5dbd7a2352d5de1f61b14452733f >> >> As I said there: "I would guess that right strategy would be to compare >> two >> versions of DMD (ie, the one DDMD is currently based on, and the one >> you're >> trying to update to), and then recreate the changes in DDMD." >> > > If you take a diff of DMD's parse.c and DDMD's parser.d, you'll see > that they're almost identical. So yeah, I think what DDMD devs > probably do is take a diff of two DMD versions and then manually > upgrade DDMD's frontend to match. I don't think it's way too much work > (I'm just assuming though), simple C++ code tends to translate nicely > into D and I think DMD's C++ sources are nice and readable.
The AST is different though. I haven't compared the contents of the files, but a quick comparison of the directory contents suggests that DMD has many different AST classes in a single .h/.c combo (with a separate .h/.c combo for each "category" of AST class types), wheras DDMD splits all the AST types into their own separate .d files. Also, since C++ and D syntax is naturally different, a file compare between a .c and .d would come up with a lot of "changes" that are just syntax differences and not real changes at all. I'd imagine there'd be a lot of that to sort through.
