Re: Start of dmd 2.064 beta program
On 24 October 2013 02:29, Walter Bright wrote: > Beta 3: > > http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.beta.3.zip I suppose I better start opening a branch in gdc for the new release -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
Re: Start of dmd 2.064 beta program
Beta 3: http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.beta.3.zip
Re: LDC 0.12.0 has been released
On 10/23/2013 02:26 PM, Kai Nacke wrote: On Wednesday, 23 October 2013 at 17:45:50 UTC, John Joyus wrote: On 10/22/2013 06:42 PM, David Nadlinger wrote: LDC 0.12.0, the LLVM-based D compiler, is available for download! Congratulations! I am a D enthusiast who reads more *about* D than actually learning the language! ;) I have a question about LLVM. When it comes to performance, do all LLVM-based languages eventually match each other in speed for any given task, no matter it is Clang or D? I guess having or not having a GC (or different implementations of it in different languages) will make a difference, but if we exclude GC, will they be generating the same exact code for any given operation? It depends. If 2 language frontends generate the same IR then LLVM generates the same exact code. But in general you have different languages features therefore the IR differs, too. (C++ classes are not available in C, C++ multiple inheritance in not available in D, D slices are not available in C++, ...) If the generated IR is too "stupid" then even the LLVM optimizer can't help (e.g. look at the now solved issue #119 https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/issues/119). And a functional language like Haskell is likely to generate totally different IR. In other words, though two different languages are based on LLVM, can one of its binary exceed the other in speed? Yes. Thanks Kai, It's good to know that "smart" developers can develop better compilers with the same IR available to all.
Re: LDC 0.12.0 has been released
On Tuesday, 22 October 2013 at 22:42:14 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote: LDC 0.12.0, the LLVM-based D compiler, is available for download! It is built on the 2.063.2 frontend and standard library and supports LLVM 3.1-3.3 (OS X: 3.2 only). Congratulations David and team :-)
Re: LDC 0.12.0 has been released
On Wednesday, 23 October 2013 at 17:45:50 UTC, John Joyus wrote: On 10/22/2013 06:42 PM, David Nadlinger wrote: LDC 0.12.0, the LLVM-based D compiler, is available for download! Congratulations! I am a D enthusiast who reads more *about* D than actually learning the language! ;) I have a question about LLVM. When it comes to performance, do all LLVM-based languages eventually match each other in speed for any given task, no matter it is Clang or D? I guess having or not having a GC (or different implementations of it in different languages) will make a difference, but if we exclude GC, will they be generating the same exact code for any given operation? It depends. If 2 language frontends generate the same IR then LLVM generates the same exact code. But in general you have different languages features therefore the IR differs, too. (C++ classes are not available in C, C++ multiple inheritance in not available in D, D slices are not available in C++, ...) If the generated IR is too "stupid" then even the LLVM optimizer can't help (e.g. look at the now solved issue #119 https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/issues/119). And a functional language like Haskell is likely to generate totally different IR. In other words, though two different languages are based on LLVM, can one of its binary exceed the other in speed? Yes. Thanks. Regards Kai
Re: LDC 0.12.0 has been released
On 10/22/2013 06:42 PM, David Nadlinger wrote: LDC 0.12.0, the LLVM-based D compiler, is available for download! Congratulations! I am a D enthusiast who reads more *about* D than actually learning the language! ;) I have a question about LLVM. When it comes to performance, do all LLVM-based languages eventually match each other in speed for any given task, no matter it is Clang or D? I guess having or not having a GC (or different implementations of it in different languages) will make a difference, but if we exclude GC, will they be generating the same exact code for any given operation? In other words, though two different languages are based on LLVM, can one of its binary exceed the other in speed? Thanks.
Re: LDC 0.12.0 has been released
On Wednesday, 23 October 2013 at 12:17:56 UTC, Dicebot wrote: Arch Linux package updated. Awesome, that was quick! Thanks, David
Re: Mono-D 0.5.4.1 - Build, completion & other fixes + Unittests via rdmd
On 22/10/2013 16:59, Manu wrote: ...okay. Ignore me! You said "GCC _is able_ to emit COFF object code", which didn't make it sound like it did, or at least not by default. Which seemed to match my experience (from years ago). I recall a conversation with Daniel Green about making a special COFF-outputting toolchain for me. So what debuginfo is in there then? MS link.exe seemed to ignore it. So, you are saying that GDC does output COFF by default? And is debuggable by gdb? I'm thoroughly confused now, this seems to contradict past experiences. Apparently I've been smoking a lot of crack... See my OP. It seems by default GDC outputs COFF object file format, but with DWARF debug info. But whatever format it is, GDB understands it quite well, that is for sure. GDC+GDB was the main configuration I tested when I was updating the Debuggers wiki page and see what kind of support there was. -- Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer
Re: Mono-D 0.5.4.1 - Build, completion & other fixes + Unittests via rdmd
On 22/10/2013 14:48, Iain Buclaw wrote: If you are using GCC, you'll be using the GCC toolchain. If you are using MSVC, you'll be using the MSVC toolchain. It's as black and white as that. I know. The point, for me at least, was not weather I could use GCC + MS debuggers or MS compilers + GDB. It was: if you use DMD (64 bit ATM) what debuggers can you use? Can you sucessfully use GDB? If not, could DMD be modified to supported whatever format GDB uses? > Also, it's not likely DWARF debug information that it emits, as the > COFF object format defines its own intrinsic symbolic debug format. > GDB can't read CV8/PDB. I think it's DWARF debug information, even for COFF and PE file format. If I run "info source" on a GDC compiled program, I get: -- (gdb) info source Current source file is ../../../gcc-4.6.1/libphobos/rt/dmain.d Compilation directory is C:\crossdev\gdc\v2\build\i686-pc-mingw32\libphobos Source language is d. Compiled with DWARF 2 debugging format. Does not include preprocessor macro info. -- I suspect that what is happening is that by default GCC toolchain stores debug information in the COFF (and PE) file format in a non-standard way - it doesn't use the COFF debug standard but uses DWARF data format instead (DWARF "is independent of object file formats"). And that's why MS tools don't understand that symbolic info, I guess. -- Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer
Re: Mono-D v0.5.4.5 - More dub support
On Wednesday, 23 October 2013 at 10:18:41 UTC, Misu wrote: Thank you. I really enjoy using D with Xamarin ! Also for Android/iOS? Could you post some short howto leading to a toy app? Thanks
Re: LDC 0.12.0 has been released
Arch Linux package updated.
Re: LDC 0.12.0 has been released
On Wed, 23 Oct 2013 00:42:13 +0200, David Nadlinger wrote: > LDC 0.12.0, the LLVM-based D compiler, is available for download! > It is built on the 2.063.2 frontend and standard library and supports > LLVM 3.1-3.3 (OS X: 3.2 only). > > As usual, you can find links to the changelog and the binary packages > over at digitalmars.D.ldc: > http://forum.dlang.org/post/mailman.2418.1382481165.1719.digitalmars-d- l...@puremagic.com > > Also, while it is not yet clear when the final DMD 2.064 release will > come out, work on integrating it into LDC has already begun, > so stay tuned for the next release. > > Cheers, > David Congratulations! :-)
Re: Mono-D v0.5.4.5 - More dub support
Thank you. I really enjoy using D with Xamarin !
