On Tuesday, 12 December 2017 at 01:03:43 UTC, David Nadlinger
wrote:
Hi Diederik,
On 11 Dec 2017, at 23:16, Diederik de Groot via dmd-internals
wrote:
From the above i gather, from your response, i should be ok
with using 2.068 as the intermediate stage.
What might be easier than to use an intermediate stage is
getting a DMD version tagged that is 2.068.2, but with the one
D dependency removed. 2.068.2 is basically still entirely C++;
only some auxiliary code has been converted to D to test the
waters
For LDC, more specifically our last C++-based version
(0.17.x/ltsmaster branch), we just reverted that change. The
resulting 2.068.2-based compiler can directly bootstrap current
master.
Best,
David
Hi David,
Thanks for your reaction !
That's exactly what i was looking for :-) Would it be possible to
get the LDC c++ based version of 2.068.2 committed to the dmd
repo (something like '2.068.3' or maybe even as a new version of
'dmd-cxx'), so that i can rebase my 'dragonflybsd_v2.068.2'
changes on top of that later on ? As your changes have already
been proven to work, it should be easier to get it accepted.
Figuring out which branch to use during porting is making the
porting process a little cumbersome.
@Iain: as dmd-cxx is not able to compile the current 'master' and
'2.068.2' is, would it make sense to replace the current dmd-cxx
with the LDC version c++ based of 2.068.2 ? I know you did quite
a bit of work backporting several patches to dmd-cxx. I am just
trying to help simplify porting of dmd to new platforms. And
having only to stages would make all of this a lot easier.
Regards,
Diederik
_______________________________________________
dmd-internals mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
