On 8/10/2015 5:35 PM, David Nadlinger via dmd-internals wrote:
On 10 Aug 2015, at 18:30, Martin Nowak via dmd-internals wrote:
With the 2.068.0 out the door let's look ahead and plan the next 2 weeks.
I'd appreciate if we could have another look at struct lifetime handling. The
whole argprefix business introduced in 2.067 made life more difficult for LDC,
and does not seem to be anywhere near complete:
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14903
Since the template emission is still being discussed, I'd also like to draw
attention to the following regression:
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14901
As you can probably guess from my GitHub feed and bug reports, I'm currently
spending most of my D time on making DMD/LDC 2.067 work for one of our
corporate users. Thus, I can't really make any big picture plans as far as I
am concerned. Focusing on DDMD exclusively for 2.069 seems like a workable
plan, although I'd really like to see some of the long overdue big issues
(e.g. 314) fixed soon. The amount of unintended regressions those cause in big
code bases on every release is staggering. Just about *every* fix for them, no
matter how disruptive they might seem, would still be a giant step over having
to deal with related fallout on every single compiler update. Backwards
compatibility for new compiler releases is currently an illusion when it comes
to even just moderately sized projects.
There's always going to be reasons not to switch to ddmd. We need to just do it.
I don't know what you mean by 314 causing regressions in every release?
_______________________________________________
dmd-internals mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
