On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 5:38 AM, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
Frits van Bommel wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Anders Bergh wrote:
You could probably make dmd run on some GNU/Darwin, but it's sort of
dead. There's http://www.puredarwin.org/ but I'm not sure if it
actually
Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:
Isn't there powerpc osx as well ?
Such should get OSX predefined as well as whatever is appropriate to
identify the powerpc (X86 is predefined for 32 bit x86, X86_64 for 64
bit x86).
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:
Isn't there powerpc osx as well ?
Such should get OSX predefined as well as whatever is appropriate to
identify the powerpc (X86 is predefined for 32 bit x86, X86_64 for 64 bit
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Jordan Miner
jminer2...@nospam.students.pcci.edu wrote:
Walter Bright Wrote:
Because gcc on linux predefines linux, not Linux.
Please change the version identifier from linux to Linux.
I realise I probably did my part to spike this discussion.
However,
Walter Bright wrote:
Jacob Carlborg wrote:
They call it Mac OS, then they add a version like this: Mac OS 9.
Then when the tenth versions came it happened to be built on a nix
base/core (known as darwin) and they also added the X (probably to
reflect the new nix base, X is also ten using
Tomas Lindquist Olsen, el 16 de abril a las 10:46 me escribiste:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Jordan Miner
jminer2...@nospam.students.pcci.edu wrote:
Walter Bright Wrote:
Because gcc on linux predefines linux, not Linux.
Please change the version identifier from linux to Linux.
Jacob Carlborg wrote:
About the darwin vs OSX. There are other operating systems than Mac
OS X that could use darwin as the version identifier if someone made a
D compiler available. iPhone OS (this is just Mac OS X on the iphone and
ipod thouch but it's called iPhone OS) and GNU/Darwin for
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 19:32, Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
Jacob Carlborg wrote:
About the darwin vs OSX. There are other operating systems than Mac OS
X that could use darwin as the version identifier if someone made a D
compiler available. iPhone OS (this is just Mac OS
Walter Bright wrote:
Jacob Carlborg wrote:
They call it Mac OS, then they add a version like this: Mac OS 9.
Then when the tenth versions came it happened to be built on a nix
base/core (known as darwin) and they also added the X (probably to
reflect the new nix base, X is also ten using
Anders Bergh wrote:
You could probably make dmd run on some GNU/Darwin, but it's sort of
dead. There's http://www.puredarwin.org/ but I'm not sure if it
actually works yet. The iPhone is an ARM platform so dmd would
certainly not work there...
If dmd/phobos binaries for osx won't work on those
Hello Walter,
If dmd/phobos binaries for osx won't work on those machines, then it's
appropriate to have a different version identifier.
I'd assert the test should be if the systems are source code compatible.
Walter Bright wrote:
Anders Bergh wrote:
You could probably make dmd run on some GNU/Darwin, but it's sort of
dead. There's http://www.puredarwin.org/ but I'm not sure if it
actually works yet. The iPhone is an ARM platform so dmd would
certainly not work there...
If dmd/phobos binaries for
Frits van Bommel wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Anders Bergh wrote:
You could probably make dmd run on some GNU/Darwin, but it's sort of
dead. There's http://www.puredarwin.org/ but I'm not sure if it
actually works yet. The iPhone is an ARM platform so dmd would
certainly not work there...
If
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 02:18, Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
Anders Bergh wrote:
You could probably make dmd run on some GNU/Darwin, but it's sort of
dead. There's http://www.puredarwin.org/ but I'm not sure if it
actually works yet. The iPhone is an ARM platform so dmd
Walter Bright wrote:
Jacob Carlborg wrote:
It depends on what documentation you read.
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/index.html
In this documentation Darwin is all over the place.
Move up a directory, and it's OSX, OSX, OSX.
I can only seem to find Mac OS X, not OSX ?
But
Denis Koroskin wrote:
I also wonder why it is OSX. Are versions prior to MacOS 10 (which is
marketed as MacOS X) officially unsupported by D?
All versions before Mac OS X 10.4 are unsupported, even though
you can make Mac OS X 10.3 limp along with an older GDC version*.
Mac OS 9 is flat out,
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
Michel Fortin wrote:
To me it's clear that Darwin is the core on which Mac OS X and iPhone OS are
based on. Mac OS X looks like a marketing name to me; I wouldn't be
surprised if in a few years it gets renamed to Mac OS XI, or something else,
because Mac OS X 10.10
Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 01:48:00 +0400, Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Now works for FreeBSD 7.1!
Nice!
But is there a particularly good reason for disregarding version
identifiers already
Walter Bright wrote:
Jacob Carlborg wrote:
If you follow what's normally written in the official literature and
documentation shouldn't it be MacOSX then?
Perhaps. One could argue it either way. I checked the predefined
identifiers in gcc for guidance, and found just the unfortunately
On 2009-04-14 20:19:29 -0400, Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com said:
__APPLE__ or __MACH__ - OSX
Apple has made many operating systems besides OSX, so __APPLE__ is out.
I can't even remember which OS Mach is.
It's defined(___APPLE__) defined(__MACH__) that is used (not or).
Read
Tomas Lindquist Olsen, el 15 de abril a las 01:45 me escribiste:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 11:51 PM, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
Tomas Lindquist Olsen
Tomas Lindquist Olsen, el 15 de abril a las 02:26 me escribiste:
Even if you strip underscores, OSX and Win32/64 still don't match
C/C++ identifiers. Why should linux be special?
Because the gcc macro suits the need perfectly. The others don't.
I simply don't agree here. To me, linux
Jacob Carlborg wrote:
They call it Mac OS, then they add a version like this: Mac OS 9.
Then when the tenth versions came it happened to be built on a nix
base/core (known as darwin) and they also added the X (probably to
reflect the new nix base, X is also ten using roman numerals) making
Walter Bright wrote:
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Now works for FreeBSD 7.1!
Nice!
But is there a particularly good reason for disregarding version
identifiers already established by gdc and ldc?
freebsd vs FreeBSD, darwin vs OSX
FreeBSD is how it is normally
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
FreeBSD breaks existing code, and so will OSX whenever darwin is removed.
Now a developer already active on those platform is forced to somehow make
sure both identifiers are in place until some unknown point in the future.
Since the version identifiers have been
Walter Bright Wrote:
Because gcc on linux predefines linux, not Linux.
Please change the version identifier from linux to Linux.
D is a chance to fix stuff wrong or inconsistent in other languages. C
compilers may use inconsistent naming like __APPLE__, __MACH__, __linux,
_WIN32, _WIN64,
Walter Bright wrote:
Now works for FreeBSD 7.1!
Nice!
But is there a particularly good reason for disregarding version identifiers
already established by gdc and ldc?
freebsd vs FreeBSD, darwin vs OSX
--
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango #D: larsivi
Dancing
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Lars Ivar Igesund larsi...@igesund.net wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Now works for FreeBSD 7.1!
Nice!
But is there a particularly good reason for disregarding version identifiers
already established by gdc and ldc?
freebsd vs FreeBSD, darwin vs OSX
And if
Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:
And if not, why is there no Linux ? This is the obvious reason for
GDC/LDC pick the lowercase identifiers in the first place ...
Because gcc on linux predefines linux, not Linux.
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:
And if not, why is there no Linux ? This is the obvious reason for
GDC/LDC pick the lowercase identifiers in the first place ...
Because gcc on linux predefines linux, not Linux.
Walter Bright wrote:
Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:
And if not, why is there no Linux ? This is the obvious reason for
GDC/LDC pick the lowercase identifiers in the first place ...
Because gcc on linux predefines linux, not Linux.
I wouldn't consider this consistent, some version identifiers
Walter Bright wrote:
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Now works for FreeBSD 7.1!
Nice!
But is there a particularly good reason for disregarding version
identifiers already established by gdc and ldc?
freebsd vs FreeBSD, darwin vs OSX
FreeBSD is how it is normally written
Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:
And if not, why is there no Linux ? This is the obvious reason for
GDC/LDC pick the lowercase identifiers in the first place ...
Because gcc on linux
Jacob Carlborg wrote:
It depends on what documentation you read.
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/index.html
In this documentation Darwin is all over the place.
Move up a directory, and it's OSX, OSX, OSX.
Jacob Carlborg wrote:
If you follow what's normally written in the official literature and
documentation shouldn't it be MacOSX then?
Perhaps. One could argue it either way. I checked the predefined
identifiers in gcc for guidance, and found just the unfortunately
generic __APPLE__. I wish
Walter Bright wrote:
Also, note that most bands put out their first CD as a self-titled one.
In my collection (admittedly a small sample; 90 bands), only 6/13
self-titled albums are first albums.
Christopher Wright wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:
And if not, why is there no Linux ? This is the obvious reason for
GDC/LDC pick the lowercase identifiers in the first place ...
Because gcc on linux predefines linux, not Linux.
Why not define both variants?
Robert Fraser wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Also, note that most bands put out their first CD as a self-titled one.
In my collection (admittedly a small sample; 90 bands), only 6/13
self-titled albums are first albums.
I salute you, sir, for actually doing some research on this important
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 11:51 PM, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:
And if not, why is there no Linux ? This is the obvious reason for
Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:
After reading more, I just can't help but feel this is wrong.
linux is still the only version identifier following this logic.
Comparing http://predef.sourceforge.net/preos.html and D:
linux - linux
_WIN32 - Win32
_WIN64 - Win64
Microsoft predefines _WIN32 for
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:49:02 -0400, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:
And if not, why is there no Linux ? This is the obvious reason for
GDC/LDC pick the lowercase identifiers in the first place ...
Because gcc on linux predefines linux, not
On 2009-04-14 17:56:51 -0400, Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com said:
Jacob Carlborg wrote:
If you follow what's normally written in the official literature and
documentation shouldn't it be MacOSX then?
Perhaps. One could argue it either way. I checked the predefined
identifiers in
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 12:49:02 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:
And if not, why is there no Linux ? This is the obvious reason for
GDC/LDC pick the lowercase identifiers in the first place ...
Because gcc on linux predefines linux, not Linux.
The way gcc does it looks
Walter Bright wrote:
cemiller wrote:
How about just making version and debug identifiers case-insensitive?
Aren't they already in their own special namespace; they're
special-case (pun intended).
Because then I have to explain why some identifiers are case sensitive
and some or not for
Walter Bright 写道:
Now works for FreeBSD 7.1!
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.043.zip
The D2 version for FreeBSD isn't ready yet. Lots of library work to be
done.
That's great! Thanks, Sir!
Maybe it's because of the DMD is packed with zip.
Tim Matthews wrote:
I use 64 bit freebsd too but thanks anyway.
I suspect most FreeBSD users are using 64 bits.
Now that there's four platforms supported it would be quite nice with
separate archives for each. .tar.gz for Linux, FreeBSD and OS X...
.zip for Windows.
2009/4/6 Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com:
Now works for FreeBSD 7.1!
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
Tim Matthews wrote:
On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 01:53:35 -0700
Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
I suspect most FreeBSD users are using 64 bits.
There is a lot using 32bit if they need hardware accelerated nvidia
graphics but yes the majority is probably using 64 bit.
I tried
Yay!
But every time you give, we demand more. Where's dmd for 64 bit platforms?
== Quote from grauzone (n...@example.net)'s article
Yay!
But every time you give, we demand more. Where's dmd for 64 bit platforms?
I assume a 64-bit port would be significantly harder than the Mac or FreeBSD
ports
because it would require writing a whole new codegen, or at least heavily
Walter Bright wrote:
Now works for FreeBSD 7.1!
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.043.zip
The D2 version for FreeBSD isn't ready yet. Lots of library work to be
done.
awesome!
On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 12:07:38 +0200
grauzone n...@example.net wrote:
Yay!
But every time you give, we demand more. Where's dmd for 64 bit
platforms?
I use 64 bit freebsd too but thanks anyway.
52 matches
Mail list logo
