On Friday, 21 October 2016 at 19:53:14 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote:
GDC git is completely 2.068.2. There are no updated binary
releases as there's still one remaining blocker regression
(32bit only).
sorry for spreading false info then.
Am Thu, 20 Oct 2016 12:21:34 +
schrieb ketmar :
> On Thursday, 20 October 2016 at 05:43:47 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
> wrote:
> >> And GDC is using the 2.068 feature set, plus a lot of bug
> >> fixes from
> >> later versions. I guess you could call it 2.068.5. :-)
> >>
On Thursday, 20 October 2016 at 16:03:32 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
On 10/20/2016 08:21 AM, ketmar wrote:
On Thursday, 20 October 2016 at 05:43:47 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
Not sure what your point is here. If you're writing a library
and want
to avoid giving your users deprecation messages
On 10/20/2016 08:21 AM, ketmar wrote:
On Thursday, 20 October 2016 at 05:43:47 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Not sure what your point is here. If you're writing a library and want
to avoid giving your users deprecation messages due to the import
changes, then you need to test on 2.070 or newer.
On Thursday, 20 October 2016 at 05:43:47 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
And GDC is using the 2.068 feature set, plus a lot of bug
fixes from
later versions. I guess you could call it 2.068.5. :-)
Maybe there's a certain amount of truth to that, but not
completely: In all my projects anyway,
Am Wed, 19 Oct 2016 19:25:39 +
schrieb TheGag96 :
> On Wednesday, 19 October 2016 at 03:29:10 UTC, Marco Leise wrote:
> > On the other hand LDC subjectively offers a couple more D
> > specific enhancements, like turning GC allocations into stack
> > allocations in
On 10/19/2016 05:13 PM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 19 October 2016 at 18:01, Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
The last GDC release is stuck all the way back at DMDFE v2.066, which is
over two years old. Very few libs/projects are going to still be supporting
that, there's just
On Wednesday, 19 October 2016 at 03:29:10 UTC, Marco Leise wrote:
I'd say start with DMD, as it comes practically free of
dependencies […]
The same applies to LDC. If you want, you can use the
self-contained binary releases, which just require the system
linker to be present, like DMD does.
On 19 October 2016 at 21:25, TheGag96 via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On Wednesday, 19 October 2016 at 03:29:10 UTC, Marco Leise wrote:
>>
>> On the other hand LDC subjectively offers a couple more D specific
>> enhancements, like turning GC allocations into stack
On 19 October 2016 at 18:01, Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On 10/18/2016 07:02 PM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
>>
>> I have a friend who has started writing a library in D.
>>
>> Although I recommended that he should use a recent dmd or ldc, he thinks
>> gdc is a
On Wednesday, 19 October 2016 at 03:29:10 UTC, Marco Leise wrote:
On the other hand LDC subjectively offers a couple more D
specific enhancements, like turning GC allocations into stack
allocations in trivial cases
Whoa, seriously? I know it's a bit off-topic, but do you have a
code example
On 10/18/2016 07:02 PM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
I have a friend who has started writing a library in D.
Although I recommended that he should use a recent dmd or ldc, he thinks
gdc is a better candidate because it's "available to the masses" through
Linux distros similar to how gcc is. Although he
On Wednesday, 19 October 2016 at 10:21:43 UTC, Dejan Lekic wrote:
because GDC is not yet merged into GCC.
there is absolutely no reason to do this. while today the
question of syncing gdc frontend with dmd is only a question of
manpower, with such a merge gdc will *always* be behind, stucked
On Wednesday, 19 October 2016 at 10:15:49 UTC, Daniel Kozak wrote:
Not true, as my previos comment mentioned almost every popular
distro nowdays have ldc and gdc in repositories. But only few
of them have dmd
most of the distros just can't. they with to repackage/rebuild
it, and boom! it is
Dne 19.10.2016 v 12:15 Daniel Kozak napsal(a):
Dne 19.10.2016 v 12:05 bachmeier via Digitalmars-d napsal(a):
On Wednesday, 19 October 2016 at 07:37:33 UTC, qznc wrote:
On Wednesday, 19 October 2016 at 00:07:12 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
According to this page
https://gdcproject.org/downloads/
On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 at 23:02:28 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
I have a friend who has started writing a library in D.
Although I recommended that he should use a recent dmd or ldc,
he thinks gdc is a better candidate because it's "available to
the masses" through Linux distros similar to
Dne 19.10.2016 v 12:05 bachmeier via Digitalmars-d napsal(a):
On Wednesday, 19 October 2016 at 07:37:33 UTC, qznc wrote:
On Wednesday, 19 October 2016 at 00:07:12 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
According to this page
https://gdcproject.org/downloads/
there are only distro packages for Ubuntu, Debian,
On Wednesday, 19 October 2016 at 07:37:33 UTC, qznc wrote:
On Wednesday, 19 October 2016 at 00:07:12 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
According to this page
https://gdcproject.org/downloads/
there are only distro packages for Ubuntu, Debian, and Arch.
If that's accurate, there really is no sense in which
On Wednesday, 19 October 2016 at 00:07:12 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
According to this page
https://gdcproject.org/downloads/
there are only distro packages for Ubuntu, Debian, and Arch. If
that's accurate, there really is no sense in which GDC is more
available than DMD.
Yes it is. Installing
Dne 19.10.2016 v 01:02 Ali Çehreli via Digitalmars-d napsal(a):
I have a friend who has started writing a library in D.
Although I recommended that he should use a recent dmd or ldc, he
thinks gdc is a better candidate because it's "available to the
masses" through Linux distros similar to
Am Tue, 18 Oct 2016 16:02:28 -0700
schrieb Ali Çehreli :
> I have a friend who has started writing a library in D.
>
> Although I recommended that he should use a recent dmd or ldc, he thinks
> gdc is a better candidate because it's "available to the masses" through
> Linux
Am Wed, 19 Oct 2016 00:07:12 +
schrieb bachmeier :
> On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 at 23:31:42 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
>
> > That's not a very convincing argument IMO. DMD packages are
> > available for download on this site. As I have learned the hard
> > way, the experience
On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 at 23:31:42 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
That's not a very convincing argument IMO. DMD packages are
available for download on this site. As I have learned the hard
way, the experience isn't always the best when you rely on
distro packagers. I once had to change distros
On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 16:02:28 Ali Çehreli via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> I have a friend who has started writing a library in D.
>
> Although I recommended that he should use a recent dmd or ldc, he thinks
> gdc is a better candidate because it's "available to the masses" through
> Linux
On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 at 23:02:28 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
I have a friend who has started writing a library in D.
Although I recommended that he should use a recent dmd or ldc,
he thinks gdc is a better candidate because it's "available to
the masses" through Linux distros similar to
I have a friend who has started writing a library in D.
Although I recommended that he should use a recent dmd or ldc, he thinks
gdc is a better candidate because it's "available to the masses" through
Linux distros similar to how gcc is. Although he has a good point, the
gdc that came with
26 matches
Mail list logo