Re: SDC-32bit
On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 17:20:36 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote: How about Javascript or JSASM? So we can write D on the browser? You mean asm.js. I will hook up emscripten soon. However the biggest issue is porting the runtime to javascript.
Re: SDC-32bit
On Friday, 17 October 2014 at 18:47:54 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote: On Friday, 17 October 2014 at 10:39:15 UTC, Temtaime wrote: New backend why ? Because I want to code a backend. I want output C or maybe even Cool ... generating UML via a backend would also be nice. Congrats on the project - v impressive. How about Javascript or JSASM? So we can write D on the browser?
Re: SDC-32bit
I want output C or maybe even Cool ... What's benefits this would give?
Re: SDC-32bit
On Saturday, 18 October 2014 at 09:29:10 UTC, Suliman wrote: What's benefits this would give? apart from the hack-factor a backend that generates _nice_ C-code is a really usefil thing to have. For example if you want to program microcontrollers in D.
Re: SDC-32bit
New backend why ?
Re: SDC-32bit
On Friday, 17 October 2014 at 10:39:15 UTC, Temtaime wrote: New backend why ? Because I want to code a backend. I want output C or maybe even Cool ... generating UML via a backend would also be nice.
Re: SDC-32bit
Updated fork again. -m32 and -m64 switches work properly now. sdc32 uses a the same default outputFile as dmd does. Soon to come : - ArrayLiterals In planning : - a new backend ;D - Source-to-Source transformations
Re: SDC-32bit
I just updated my fork. https://github.com/UplinkCoder/sdc32-experimental * test0037 passes now meaning that alias works in more cases * I implemented foreach for Arrays though since ArrayLiterals are currently not supported this is not too helpful.
Re: SDC-32bit
On Tuesday, 5 August 2014 at 17:02:28 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 August 2014 at 16:54:47 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you referring to things
like pragma msg?
to things like mixin(mixin(`writeln (Hello World);`);
```
bool foo() { ... }
template bar(bool cond)
{
static if (cond)
enum bar = int a;;
else
enum bar = int b;;
}
mixin(bar!(foo()));
pragma(msg, is(typeof(a)));
```
Good luck doing parallel semantic analysis :D I am sure
deadalnix can give example much worse than that though.
Yes, this kind of thing, and it can get much more nasty if you
scatter the declaration in various scopes, or better in various
modules.
Re: SDC-32bit
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 23:16:45 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote: jsonRunner really runs fast ... io overhead really makes a diffrence Correction I just checked the old runner and I found out the following: sdc runs 7.5 times faster if all sourceFiles are compiled together. (as dub does) the slowdown is only visible if one compiles each file into an objectfile and then links it together. (as the makefile does)
Re: SDC-32bit
On 2014-08-04 04:19:01 +, deadalnix said: On Saturday, 2 August 2014 at 22:48:35 UTC, Shammah Chancellor wrote: Also, it looks by using your fiber based scheduler that you can naturally parallize compiling. Have you investigated that at all? Obviously, yes. But that is quite tricky to get a deterministic result due to compile time features. I'm not sure what you mean. Are you referring to things like pragma msg?
Re: SDC-32bit
On Tuesday, 5 August 2014 at 11:56:28 UTC, Shammah Chancellor wrote: On 2014-08-04 04:19:01 +, deadalnix said: On Saturday, 2 August 2014 at 22:48:35 UTC, Shammah Chancellor wrote: Also, it looks by using your fiber based scheduler that you can naturally parallize compiling. Have you investigated that at all? Obviously, yes. But that is quite tricky to get a deterministic result due to compile time features. I'm not sure what you mean. Are you referring to things like pragma msg? to things like mixin(mixin(`writeln (Hello World);`);
Re: SDC-32bit
On Tuesday, 5 August 2014 at 16:54:47 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you referring to things like
pragma msg?
to things like mixin(mixin(`writeln (Hello World);`);
```
bool foo() { ... }
template bar(bool cond)
{
static if (cond)
enum bar = int a;;
else
enum bar = int b;;
}
mixin(bar!(foo()));
pragma(msg, is(typeof(a)));
```
Good luck doing parallel semantic analysis :D I am sure deadalnix
can give example much worse than that though.
Re: SDC-32bit
On 2014-08-05 17:02:27 +, Dicebot said:
On Tuesday, 5 August 2014 at 16:54:47 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you referring to things like pragma msg?
to things like mixin(mixin(`writeln (Hello World);`);
```
bool foo() { ... }
template bar(bool cond)
{
static if (cond)
enum bar = int a;;
else
enum bar = int b;;
}
mixin(bar!(foo()));
pragma(msg, is(typeof(a)));
```
Good luck doing parallel semantic analysis :D I am sure deadalnix can
give example much worse than that though.
They'd still work right. The only thing I can think of that'd be
annoying would be that independent functions would compile in a
non-deterministic order. So your errors and whatnot may display
non-deterministically.
Re: SDC-32bit
On Saturday, 2 August 2014 at 22:48:35 UTC, Shammah Chancellor wrote: On 2014-08-01 05:00:53 +, deadalnix said: On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 13:36:39 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote: Hello, I am happy to announce that my 32bit version of sdc compiles the whole testsuite including mixins. the only there are only 6 tests still failing 2 of them are dependent on size_t.siezof beeing 8. The otherer 4 have to do with execptoion handling. please check out the 32-branches on https://github.com/UplinkCoder/sdc and https://github.com/UplinkCoder/libd-llvm and https://github.com/UplinkCoder/libd I haven't yet updated the submodules so you have to fetch the 32-branch manually. and remember that this is experimental! please file issues on in my repo if your errors appear with both -m64 and -m32. if there are any questions please ask them. A bit late, but that is awesome. I need to go through all of this and am in holidays right now. #1 on the todo list when i come back. Also, it looks by using your fiber based scheduler that you can naturally parallize compiling. Have you investigated that at all? I have planned to add async IO through vibe.d. that alone just grant huge speedups. I also want to integrate SQLite or redis based incremental compilation. I don`t think we can beat dmd soon. But I think we can come much closer :D
Re: SDC-32bit
On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 15:49:09 + Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: it must have a commit I have squashed. I do this quite often since sometimes I commit stuff that causes my build to fail :p btw, please, don't do that. just revert commits, there's no need to rewrite the history hard way. or use branches and do cherry-picking, it's easy once you get used to it. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: SDC-32bit
On Sunday, 3 August 2014 at 11:19:01 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote: On Saturday, 2 August 2014 at 22:48:35 UTC, Shammah Chancellor wrote: On 2014-08-01 05:00:53 +, deadalnix said: On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 13:36:39 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote: Hello, I am happy to announce that my 32bit version of sdc compiles the whole testsuite including mixins. the only there are only 6 tests still failing 2 of them are dependent on size_t.siezof beeing 8. The otherer 4 have to do with execptoion handling. please check out the 32-branches on https://github.com/UplinkCoder/sdc and https://github.com/UplinkCoder/libd-llvm and https://github.com/UplinkCoder/libd I haven't yet updated the submodules so you have to fetch the 32-branch manually. and remember that this is experimental! please file issues on in my repo if your errors appear with both -m64 and -m32. if there are any questions please ask them. A bit late, but that is awesome. I need to go through all of this and am in holidays right now. #1 on the todo list when i come back. Also, it looks by using your fiber based scheduler that you can naturally parallize compiling. Have you investigated that at all? I have planned to add async IO through vibe.d. that alone just grant huge speedups. I also want to integrate SQLite or redis based incremental compilation. I don`t think we can beat dmd soon. But I think we can come much closer :D Any idea what the significant bottlenecks are / what dmd is much faster at?
Re: SDC-32bit
On Sunday, 3 August 2014 at 11:37:26 UTC, John Colvin wrote: On Sunday, 3 August 2014 at 11:19:01 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote: On Saturday, 2 August 2014 at 22:48:35 UTC, Shammah Chancellor wrote: On 2014-08-01 05:00:53 +, deadalnix said: On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 13:36:39 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote: Hello, I am happy to announce that my 32bit version of sdc compiles the whole testsuite including mixins. the only there are only 6 tests still failing 2 of them are dependent on size_t.siezof beeing 8. The otherer 4 have to do with execptoion handling. please check out the 32-branches on https://github.com/UplinkCoder/sdc and https://github.com/UplinkCoder/libd-llvm and https://github.com/UplinkCoder/libd I haven't yet updated the submodules so you have to fetch the 32-branch manually. and remember that this is experimental! please file issues on in my repo if your errors appear with both -m64 and -m32. if there are any questions please ask them. A bit late, but that is awesome. I need to go through all of this and am in holidays right now. #1 on the todo list when i come back. Also, it looks by using your fiber based scheduler that you can naturally parallize compiling. Have you investigated that at all? I have planned to add async IO through vibe.d. that alone just grant huge speedups. I also want to integrate SQLite or redis based incremental compilation. I don`t think we can beat dmd soon. But I think we can come much closer :D Any idea what the significant bottlenecks are / what dmd is much faster at? hmm i would say io ist a huge factor but this is just a guess I have to do profiling probably i am wrong
Re: SDC-32bit
On Sunday, 3 August 2014 at 11:31:10 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 15:49:09 + Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: it must have a commit I have squashed. I do this quite often since sometimes I commit stuff that causes my build to fail :p btw, please, don't do that. just revert commits, there's no need to rewrite the history hard way. or use branches and do cherry-picking, it's easy once you get used to it. yeah I will try to keep it clean :D
Re: SDC-32bit
On Saturday, 2 August 2014 at 22:48:35 UTC, Shammah Chancellor wrote: Also, it looks by using your fiber based scheduler that you can naturally parallize compiling. Have you investigated that at all? Obviously, yes. But that is quite tricky to get a deterministic result due to compile time features.
Re: SDC-32bit
On Sunday, 3 August 2014 at 11:37:26 UTC, John Colvin wrote: Any idea what the significant bottlenecks are / what dmd is much faster at? No idea. I'd like to know, but ultimately, supporting more of D is more important than being fast right now.
Re: SDC-32bit
On Sat, 02 Aug 2014 03:27:58 + deadalnix via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: I got that error recently. It is an LLVM bug and upgrading LLVM should do the trick. in my case it was nothing with LLVM. sdc-32 needs dmd-2.065, and i'm using dmd-2.066-master. switching to 2.065 resolves the issue. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: SDC-32bit
On 2014-08-01 05:00:53 +, deadalnix said: On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 13:36:39 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote: Hello, I am happy to announce that my 32bit version of sdc compiles the whole testsuite including mixins. the only there are only 6 tests still failing 2 of them are dependent on size_t.siezof beeing 8. The otherer 4 have to do with execptoion handling. please check out the 32-branches on https://github.com/UplinkCoder/sdc and https://github.com/UplinkCoder/libd-llvm and https://github.com/UplinkCoder/libd I haven't yet updated the submodules so you have to fetch the 32-branch manually. and remember that this is experimental! please file issues on in my repo if your errors appear with both -m64 and -m32. if there are any questions please ask them. A bit late, but that is awesome. I need to go through all of this and am in holidays right now. #1 on the todo list when i come back. The methodology of SDC is awesome deadalnix. I'm very happy this is moving forward. It reduces the code to implement a D compiler by a substantial amount. When I have more time I plan to start contributing.
Re: SDC-32bit
On 2014-08-01 05:00:53 +, deadalnix said: On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 13:36:39 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote: Hello, I am happy to announce that my 32bit version of sdc compiles the whole testsuite including mixins. the only there are only 6 tests still failing 2 of them are dependent on size_t.siezof beeing 8. The otherer 4 have to do with execptoion handling. please check out the 32-branches on https://github.com/UplinkCoder/sdc and https://github.com/UplinkCoder/libd-llvm and https://github.com/UplinkCoder/libd I haven't yet updated the submodules so you have to fetch the 32-branch manually. and remember that this is experimental! please file issues on in my repo if your errors appear with both -m64 and -m32. if there are any questions please ask them. A bit late, but that is awesome. I need to go through all of this and am in holidays right now. #1 on the todo list when i come back. Also, it looks by using your fiber based scheduler that you can naturally parallize compiling. Have you investigated that at all?
Re: SDC-32bit
On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:39:15 + Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: can't link it. GNU/Linux, x86, latest DMD from git. lib/libd.a(semantic.o): In function `_D1d3ast10expression56__T15UnaryExpressionTC1d3ast10expression13AstExpressionZ15UnaryExpression11__T6__ctorZ6__ctorMFS1d8location8LocationE1d3ast10expression7UnaryOpC1d3ast10expression13AstExpressionZC1d3ast10expression56__T15UnaryExpressionTC1d3ast10expression13AstExpressionZ15UnaryExpression': ... and so on LLVM 3.4.2, so prerequisites are ok. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: SDC-32bit
hmm it looks like you are not linking llvm in ... do you use the most recent version from my sdc32-experimental repo ? please not that the dub build is broken because i can't get the link order right. so you have to `make` it :D
Re: SDC-32bit
On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 15:07:56 + Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: hmm it looks like you are not linking llvm in ... but i am. %-) or, better to say, your makefile doing it with `llvm-config --libs`. do you use the most recent version from my sdc32-experimental repo ? yes, just cloned it before sending report. commit 34fdd6a73e6137173a3840218a76dfd2f6c50d68 so you have to `make` it :D yes, i read README and did 'make'. %-) actually, i'm not using DUB at all. and before anyone will ask: it's Slackware, there is no need to install any '-devel' packages. %-) also please note that i'm using the lastest DMD git, not any of the officially released versions. and gcc 4.9.1. p.s. maybe i should rebuild llvm from sources before we continue. i'll try to do it tomorrow. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: SDC-32bit
please do `git pull` and if the error presists post the full error-message on dpaste or similar.
Re: SDC-32bit
Are you on a 64bit system ? my makesfiles are hardcoded to use -m32 so I guess it will not link with 64bit libs
Re: SDC-32bit
On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 15:33:05 + Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: please do `git pull` and if the error presists post the full error-message on dpaste or similar. you're welcome. upgated to git commit 58a36a1acdc6b9a5bcd07edf69b958c3b4ac1657 build log: http://dpaste.com/2NBTC2W signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: SDC-32bit
On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 15:40:31 + Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: Are you on a 64bit system ? no, i said somewhere in the previous messages that i'm using x86 arch. %-) signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: SDC-32bit
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 15:26:08 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: yes, just cloned it before sending report. commit 34fdd6a73e6137173a3840218a76dfd2f6c50d68 Hmm I can't find commit 34fdd6a73e6137173a3840218a76dfd2f6c50d68 ... it must have a commit I have squashed. I do this quite often since sometimes I commit stuff that causes my build to fail :p
Re: SDC-32bit
I can say it has nothing todo with llvm (so far)
Re: SDC-32bit
On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 15:54:42 + Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: AFAICS this it because you are using dmd-master if it fails with the dmd-2.065 then I have a real nut to crack sorry, you are right. downgrading to dmd-2.065 fixes the build. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: SDC-32bit
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 16:31:49 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 15:54:42 + Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: AFAICS this it because you are using dmd-master if it fails with the dmd-2.065 then I have a real nut to crack sorry, you are right. downgrading to dmd-2.065 fixes the build. OK I`am glad it was so easy please try to compile a few tests and tell me if it works
Re: SDC-32bit
Next time you might want to use my jsonRunner it runs 7.5x times faster than the old one :D thogh it needs a bit more work enableing multihtreading and such
Re: SDC-32bit
On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 21:58:58 + Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: enableing multihtreading and such i explititely passes runner.d -j1 (other cores has work to do too %-) signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: SDC-32bit
first run time ./runner and then run sh buildTester.sh ./convtest and then time ./jsonRunner i am intressted in your timings runner d envokes the sdc binary while jsonRunner is linked with sdc
Re: SDC-32bit
On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 22:16:50 + Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: sh buildTester.sh alas, i have no LLVMArchive, and it refuses to link without it. when i removed -L-lLLVMArchive, it says that /usr/lib/gcc/i486-slackware-linux/4.9.1/../../../libLLVMSupport.a(Process.o): In function `llvm::sys::Process::FileDescriptorHasColors(int)': Process.cpp:(.text+0x948): undefined reference to `setupterm' Process.cpp:(.text+0x962): undefined reference to `tigetnum' Process.cpp:(.text+0x975): undefined reference to `set_curterm' Process.cpp:(.text+0x97d): undefined reference to `del_curterm' collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: SDC-32bit
On Sat, 2 Aug 2014 01:37:33 +0300 ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: damn, it's hard to switch between two dmds. ok, i compiled everything, here's the timings: ./runner 2 /dev/null /dev/null 21.39s user 1.48s system 146% cpu 15.643 total ./jsonRunner 2 /dev/null /dev/null 2.60s user 0.76s system 86% cpu 3.899 total signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: SDC-32bit
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 22:44:48 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: On Sat, 2 Aug 2014 01:37:33 +0300 ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: damn, it's hard to switch between two dmds. ok, i compiled everything, here's the timings: ./runner 2 /dev/null /dev/null 21.39s user 1.48s system 146% cpu 15.643 total ./jsonRunner 2 /dev/null /dev/null 2.60s user 0.76s system 86% cpu 3.899 total Thanks jsonRunner really runs fast ... io overhead really makes a diffrence well I will go to bed now. it's 1AM localtime Thanks for your cooperation! Good Night
Re: SDC-32bit
On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 23:16:43 + Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: Thanks for your cooperation! you're welcome. %-) signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: SDC-32bit
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 09:02:23 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:39:15 + Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: can't link it. GNU/Linux, x86, latest DMD from git. lib/libd.a(semantic.o): In function `_D1d3ast10expression56__T15UnaryExpressionTC1d3ast10expression13AstExpressionZ15UnaryExpression11__T6__ctorZ6__ctorMFS1d8location8LocationE1d3ast10expression7UnaryOpC1d3ast10expression13AstExpressionZC1d3ast10expression56__T15UnaryExpressionTC1d3ast10expression13AstExpressionZ15UnaryExpression': ... and so on LLVM 3.4.2, so prerequisites are ok. I got that error recently. It is an LLVM bug and upgrading LLVM should do the trick.
Re: SDC-32bit
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 13:36:39 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote: Hello, I am happy to announce that my 32bit version of sdc compiles the whole testsuite including mixins. the only there are only 6 tests still failing 2 of them are dependent on size_t.siezof beeing 8. The otherer 4 have to do with execptoion handling. please check out the 32-branches on https://github.com/UplinkCoder/sdc and https://github.com/UplinkCoder/libd-llvm and https://github.com/UplinkCoder/libd I haven't yet updated the submodules so you have to fetch the 32-branch manually. and remember that this is experimental! please file issues on in my repo if your errors appear with both -m64 and -m32. if there are any questions please ask them. A bit late, but that is awesome. I need to go through all of this and am in holidays right now. #1 on the todo list when i come back.
Re: SDC-32bit
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 18:58:50 UTC, UplinkCoder wrote: Sorry I think i messed up with my github branches. until i get it straightend out you can get my local working source verbatim from http://www42.zippyshare.com/v/4371099/file.html I modified the sdc to produce 32bit code if the -m32 argument is passed to it. 64bit is still the default. I also modified the runner executable to use the 32bit-sdc if --m32 is passed to it. Don't recompile the runner it will only produce 32bit tests. I modified the sdrt to get it to compile for 32bit. Therefore everything with Execptions will fail. I have now setup a repo with my 32bbi sdc source. https://github.com/UplinkCoder/sdc32-experimental There are now submodules I dump my source straight in there. cloning it and calling make should be enough.
Re: SDC-32bit
make that I have now setup a repo with my 32bit sdc source. https://github.com/UplinkCoder/sdc32-experimental There are NO submodules I dump my source straight in there. cloning it and calling make should be enough.
Re: SDC-32bit
On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 13:36:37 + Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: wow. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: SDC-32bit
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 13:36:39 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote: Hello, the only there are only 6 tests still failing 2 of them are dependent on size_t.siezof beeing 8. Correction I fixed the tests for 32bit only 4 tests are failing all of them due to Execptions
Re: SDC-32bit
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 14:22:43 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 13:36:37 + Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: wow. Well thanks. please give me feedback if you are using it. In the next days i'm going to tackle ArrayLiterals and foreach
Re: SDC-32bit
On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 15:43:56 + Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: ah. sure i'll try to write you about every bug i found. %-) signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: SDC-32bit
Sorry I think i messed up with my github branches. until i get it straightend out you can get my local working source verbatim from http://www42.zippyshare.com/v/4371099/file.html I modified the sdc to produce 32bit code if the -m32 argument is passed to it. 64bit is still the default. I also modified the runner executable to use the 32bit-sdc if --m32 is passed to it. Don't recompile the runner it will only produce 32bit tests. I modified the sdrt to get it to compile for 32bit. Therefore everything with Execptions will fail.
