On Monday, 13 November 2017 at 19:04:16 UTC, Ivan Butygin wrote:
You need to explicitly compile `@dynamicCompile` functions
before using any of them.
Interesting feature. So is the executable linked to an installed
instance of LDC/LLVM to make this happen, or is there some
limited compiler
On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 00:29:19 UTC, Parke wrote:
But my original question was about what you (Kagamin) called
"intermediate D". I was trying to understand what
"intermediate D"
is, and whether or not I could use "intermediate D" (whatever
it is)
to produce small(er) executables.
On Friday, 25 August 2017 at 23:13:53 UTC, Mengu wrote:
On Friday, 25 August 2017 at 00:24:14 UTC, Michael V. Franklin
wrote:
On Thursday, 24 August 2017 at 19:21:31 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
[...]
Great! I look forward to seeing improvements and hope to help.
[...]
i believe that should
On Thursday, 24 August 2017 at 19:21:31 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 8/24/2017 11:56 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
I find -betterC to be somewhat of a copout for avoiding the
hard work of improving D's implementation.
On the contrary, I view it as providing motivation for dealing
with those
On Thursday, 24 August 2017 at 18:26:37 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
For instance, a D project targeting STM board, makes heavy use
of classes and templates, resultant code segment is 3k.
https://github.com/JinShil/stm32f42_discovery_demo#the-good
To be fair, though, the above-mentioned project
On Wednesday, 23 August 2017 at 17:44:31 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
I confess that I tend to think of betterC as a waste of time.
Clearly, there are folks who find it useful, but it loses so
much that I see no point in using it for anything unless I have
no choice. As long as attempts to
