On Monday, 10 July 2017 at 21:30:44 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
You can't use RTTI or Exceptions, for example. Those generate
bloat even if they are not used - a compiler switch is typical
to disable them. It's not true that C++ is "pay only for what
you use".
If the C++ usage is "C with
On Thursday, 13 July 2017 at 16:46:12 UTC, Luís Marques wrote:
[ ... ]
On D side the issue that remains is the ergonomics of having to
type cast(short) more frequently. I suppose that if this proves
too inconvenient we can just create a library type that avoids
this issue, right?
Yes. we
On Monday, 10 July 2017 at 21:30:44 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
For example, ints in C are 16 bits. In D they are 32. This
means that integer operations are expensive.
I just realized something interesting. The same situation happens
on AVR with C. AVR is 8 bit (but often competes with 16-bit
On Monday, 10 July 2017 at 21:30:44 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/10/2017 1:52 PM, Luís Marques wrote:
On Monday, 10 July 2017 at 20:19:46 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/10/2017 12:46 PM, Luís Marques wrote:
I'm curious how that implementation addresses the issues I
brought up:
I'm not
On Wednesday, 12 July 2017 at 09:38:13 UTC, Martin Tschierschke
wrote:
On Monday, 10 July 2017 at 23:01:50 UTC, Luís Marques wrote:
On Monday, 10 July 2017 at 22:39:22 UTC, Petar Kirov
[ZombineDev] wrote:
The problem Walter pointed to is that due to integer
Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for
On Monday, 10 July 2017 at 23:01:50 UTC, Luís Marques wrote:
On Monday, 10 July 2017 at 22:39:22 UTC, Petar Kirov
[ZombineDev] wrote:
The problem Walter pointed to is that due to integer
promotion, arithmetic operands of types smaller than int are
converted to int, hence even if you use bytes
On Monday, 10 July 2017 at 22:39:22 UTC, Petar Kirov [ZombineDev]
wrote:
The problem Walter pointed to is that due to integer promotion,
arithmetic operands of types smaller than int are converted to
int, hence even if you use bytes and shorts you would end up
using ints, which are expensive
On Monday, 10 July 2017 at 21:53:16 UTC, Luís Marques wrote:
On Monday, 10 July 2017 at 21:30:44 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
You can't use RTTI or Exceptions, for example. Those generate
bloat even if they are not used - a compiler switch is typical
to disable them. It's not true that C++ is
On Monday, 10 July 2017 at 21:30:44 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
You can't use RTTI or Exceptions, for example. Those generate
bloat even if they are not used - a compiler switch is typical
to disable them. It's not true that C++ is "pay only for what
you use".
If the C++ usage is "C with
On 7/10/2017 1:52 PM, Luís Marques wrote:
On Monday, 10 July 2017 at 20:19:46 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/10/2017 12:46 PM, Luís Marques wrote:
I'm curious how that implementation addresses the issues I brought up:
I'm not really sure how to respond, you mostly just made statements about
On Monday, 10 July 2017 at 20:19:46 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/10/2017 12:46 PM, Luís Marques wrote:
I'm curious how that implementation addresses the issues I
brought up:
I'm not really sure how to respond, you mostly just made
statements about your worldview. For instance:
"C++ on a
On 7/10/2017 12:46 PM, Luís Marques wrote:
since LDC essentially works for MSP430, even though it isn't officially
supported.
I'm curious how that implementation addresses the issues I brought up:
Hello,
Johan Engelen suggested I bring further attention to this issue
here in the D forums.
We need a version identifier for 16-bit code (e.g. to
conditionally define size_t correctly). This is not theoretical,
it's an actual need, since LDC essentially works for MSP430, even
though it
13 matches
Mail list logo
