Re: Is it feasible to slowly rewrite a C++ codebase in D?
On Friday, 20 July 2018 at 15:20:43 UTC, bachmeier wrote: Can confirm that dpp works to create mex files. Rewriting the mypow2.c example in D: [snip] This sounds really great. I assume if it works with Octave it is very likely to work with Matlab's mex.h without issues (I might get dragged in to using Matlab again here soon).
Re: Is it feasible to slowly rewrite a C++ codebase in D?
On Wednesday, 20 June 2018 at 18:47:10 UTC, Jordi Gutiérrez
Hermoso wrote:
Another possibility might be in dlopen'able functions.
Currently Octave uses so-called oct functions, which are
nothing more than C++ object code that is dynamically loaded by
the interpreter at runtime. They are compiled to the Octave C++
API, but we also have a Matlab-compatible C API that perhaps
could be more amenable for D-ification.
Can confirm that dpp works to create mex files. Rewriting the
mypow2.c example in D:
File mypow3.dpp
#include "mex.h"
import std.conv, std.stdio;
extern(C) void mexFunction(int nlhs, mxArray** plhs,
int nrhs, const mxArray** prhs) {
mwSize n;
mwIndex i;
double * vri;
double * vro;
if (nrhs != 1 || !mxIsDouble(prhs[0]))
mexErrMsgTxt ("ARG1 must be a double matrix");
n = mxGetNumberOfElements(prhs[0]).to!int;
plhs[0] = mxCreateNumericArray (mxGetNumberOfDimensions
(prhs[0]),
mxGetDimensions (prhs[0]),
mxGetClassID (prhs[0]),
mxIsComplex(prhs[0]).to!mxComplexity);
vri = mxGetPr (prhs[0]);
vro = mxGetPr (plhs[0]);
if (mxIsComplex (prhs[0])) {
double* vii, vio;
vii = mxGetPi (prhs[0]);
vio = mxGetPi (plhs[0]);
for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
vro[i] = vri[i] * vri[i] - vii[i] * vii[i];
vio[i] = 2 * vri[i] * vii[i];
}
} else {
for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
vro[i] = vri[i] * vri[i];
}
}
Create the shared library using the information provided by
mkoctfile:
d++ -c -fPIC --include-path /usr/include/octave-4.2.2/octave/.. \
--include-path /usr/include/octave-4.2.2/octave \
--include-path /usr/include/hdf5/serial mypow3.dpp
dmd -shared -defaultlib=libphobos2.so -of=mypow3.mex mypow3.o \
-L/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/liboctinterp.so \
-L/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/liboctave.so
In Octave:
b = randn (4,1);
mypow3(b)
ans =
0.45984
3.54732
0.30075
2.09107
Re: Is it feasible to slowly rewrite a C++ codebase in D?
On Tuesday, 17 July 2018 at 22:10:52 UTC, jmh530 wrote: On Tuesday, 17 July 2018 at 16:39:48 UTC, bachmeier wrote: On Tuesday, 17 July 2018 at 15:55:03 UTC, bachmeier wrote: On Tuesday, 17 July 2018 at 06:57:37 UTC, drug wrote: [...] I'm going to create an issue on Github. This is the output I get: [...] I solved that problem but now I have others. dpp is a good thing on paper but maybe not yet in practice. Echoing what Andrei and Walter say all the time, it's not going to get fixed without bug reports... I plan to report this...eventually.
Re: Is it feasible to slowly rewrite a C++ codebase in D?
On Tuesday, 17 July 2018 at 16:39:48 UTC, bachmeier wrote: On Tuesday, 17 July 2018 at 15:55:03 UTC, bachmeier wrote: On Tuesday, 17 July 2018 at 06:57:37 UTC, drug wrote: [...] I'm going to create an issue on Github. This is the output I get: [...] I solved that problem but now I have others. dpp is a good thing on paper but maybe not yet in practice. Echoing what Andrei and Walter say all the time, it's not going to get fixed without bug reports...
Re: Is it feasible to slowly rewrite a C++ codebase in D?
On Tuesday, 17 July 2018 at 15:55:03 UTC, bachmeier wrote: On Tuesday, 17 July 2018 at 06:57:37 UTC, drug wrote: [...] I'm going to create an issue on Github. This is the output I get: [...] I solved that problem but now I have others. dpp is a good thing on paper but maybe not yet in practice.
Re: Is it feasible to slowly rewrite a C++ codebase in D?
On Tuesday, 17 July 2018 at 06:57:37 UTC, drug wrote: I just build it using dub then do something like that(from memory): `d++ some_c_header.h --include-path path/to/other/c/header/files --keep-d-files` and it generates d file for the corresponding c header. Although dpp is intended to be used directly I use it for generating intermediate files. First of all because when I tried to import nuklear.h dpp generated nuklear.d with simple error - due to bug it included diagnostic message of libclang into d file and it was simpler and faster to edit intermediate file manually than wait for bug fixing. I'm going to create an issue on Github. This is the output I get: $ dub build dpp Building package dpp in /home/office/.dub/packages/dpp-0.0.1/dpp/ WARNING: A deprecated branch based version specification is used for the dependency libclang. Please use numbered versions instead. Also note that you can still use the dub.selections.json file to override a certain dependency to use a branch instead. Performing "debug" build using /usr/bin/dmd for x86_64. libclang ~master: target for configuration "library" is up to date. dpp 0.0.1: building configuration "executable"... .dub/packages/dpp-0.0.1/dpp/source/dpp/runtime/app.d(106,16): Warning: C preprocessor directive #define is not supported .dub/packages/dpp-0.0.1/dpp/source/dpp/cursor/typedef_.d(89,9): Error: @nogc function dpp.cursor.typedef_.isSomeFunction cannot call non-@nogc function clang.Type.pointee .dub/packages/dpp-0.0.1/dpp/source/dpp/type/package.d(176,8): Error: incompatible types for (type.pointee()) is (null): Type and typeof(null) .dub/packages/dpp-0.0.1/dpp/source/dpp/type/package.d(177,12): Error: incompatible types for (type.pointee()) !is (null): Type and typeof(null) .dub/packages/dpp-0.0.1/dpp/source/dpp/type/package.d(184,40): Error: can only * a pointer, not a Type .dub/packages/dpp-0.0.1/dpp/source/dpp/type/package.d(192,21): Error: can only * a pointer, not a Type .dub/packages/dpp-0.0.1/dpp/source/dpp/type/package.d(202,22): Error: cannot implicitly convert expression (*ptr).pointee() of type Type to const(Type)* .dub/packages/dpp-0.0.1/dpp/source/dpp/type/package.d(246,31): Error: can only * a pointer, not a Type /usr/bin/dmd failed with exit code 1.
Re: Is it feasible to slowly rewrite a C++ codebase in D?
16.07.2018 17:32, bachmeier пишет: On Friday, 13 July 2018 at 19:53:45 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote: On Wednesday, 20 June 2018 at 18:47:10 UTC, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: What are your ideas? If you would like to expose C function and type declarations to D, you could take a look at DPP, which allows you to just #include a C header. If you encounter a bug, please file an issue and in time we will fix it. Does not yet work for C++ except in some cases. https://github.com/atilaneves/dpp I would like to give this a try, but I don't see any instructions for installation on the Github page. I tried dub build dpp, but I got a bunch of error messages. I just build it using dub then do something like that(from memory): `d++ some_c_header.h --include-path path/to/other/c/header/files --keep-d-files` and it generates d file for the corresponding c header. Although dpp is intended to be used directly I use it for generating intermediate files. First of all because when I tried to import nuklear.h dpp generated nuklear.d with simple error - due to bug it included diagnostic message of libclang into d file and it was simpler and faster to edit intermediate file manually than wait for bug fixing.
Re: Is it feasible to slowly rewrite a C++ codebase in D?
On Friday, 13 July 2018 at 19:53:45 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote: On Wednesday, 20 June 2018 at 18:47:10 UTC, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: What are your ideas? If you would like to expose C function and type declarations to D, you could take a look at DPP, which allows you to just #include a C header. If you encounter a bug, please file an issue and in time we will fix it. Does not yet work for C++ except in some cases. https://github.com/atilaneves/dpp I would like to give this a try, but I don't see any instructions for installation on the Github page. I tried dub build dpp, but I got a bunch of error messages.
Re: Is it feasible to slowly rewrite a C++ codebase in D?
On Monday, 16 July 2018 at 13:15:56 UTC, Timoses wrote: On Monday, 16 July 2018 at 11:31:32 UTC, Seb wrote: On Monday, 16 July 2018 at 11:12:20 UTC, Dukc wrote: On Saturday, 14 July 2018 at 03:08:50 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: I'll follow up with Alawain. Regardless, dscripten-tools borrows very little from the redistributable parts of dscripten - mostly the "minimalistic runtime", which I think was itself borrowed from somewhere else. Indeed, it appears Alawain himself just changed the runtime part to be boost! If he is reading this, thank you! https://github.com/Ace17/dscriptenQ/issues/4 Superfluous Q attack. Working link: https://github.com/Ace17/dscripten/issues/4 Sorry for the typo (not sure how that happened) and thanks for correcting!
Re: Is it feasible to slowly rewrite a C++ codebase in D?
On Monday, 16 July 2018 at 11:31:32 UTC, Seb wrote: On Monday, 16 July 2018 at 11:12:20 UTC, Dukc wrote: On Saturday, 14 July 2018 at 03:08:50 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: I'll follow up with Alawain. Regardless, dscripten-tools borrows very little from the redistributable parts of dscripten - mostly the "minimalistic runtime", which I think was itself borrowed from somewhere else. Indeed, it appears Alawain himself just changed the runtime part to be boost! If he is reading this, thank you! https://github.com/Ace17/dscriptenQ/issues/4 Superfluous Q attack. Working link: https://github.com/Ace17/dscripten/issues/4
Re: Is it feasible to slowly rewrite a C++ codebase in D?
On Monday, 16 July 2018 at 11:12:20 UTC, Dukc wrote: On Saturday, 14 July 2018 at 03:08:50 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: I'll follow up with Alawain. Regardless, dscripten-tools borrows very little from the redistributable parts of dscripten - mostly the "minimalistic runtime", which I think was itself borrowed from somewhere else. Indeed, it appears Alawain himself just changed the runtime part to be boost! If he is reading this, thank you! https://github.com/Ace17/dscriptenQ/issues/4
Re: Is it feasible to slowly rewrite a C++ codebase in D?
On Saturday, 14 July 2018 at 03:08:50 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: I'll follow up with Alawain. Regardless, dscripten-tools borrows very little from the redistributable parts of dscripten - mostly the "minimalistic runtime", which I think was itself borrowed from somewhere else. Indeed, it appears Alawain himself just changed the runtime part to be boost! If he is reading this, thank you!
Re: Is it feasible to slowly rewrite a C++ codebase in D?
On Friday, 13 July 2018 at 07:51:51 UTC, Dukc wrote: I know about Vladimir's d-scripten tools library which would help, but it's based on Alawains library copyleft library, which makes also Vladimir's work copyleft, so I won't use it. Hmm, I wasn't aware of this. I wonder if the decision to make the redistributable parts of dscripten was intentional (maybe the intention was to apply the license only to the scripts which build the toolchain). I'll follow up with Alawain. Regardless, dscripten-tools borrows very little from the redistributable parts of dscripten - mostly the "minimalistic runtime", which I think was itself borrowed from somewhere else.
Re: Is it feasible to slowly rewrite a C++ codebase in D?
On Wednesday, 20 June 2018 at 18:47:10 UTC, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: I'm specifically thinking of the GNU Octave codebase: http://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/file/@ It's a fairly old and complicated C++ codebase. I would like to see if I could slowly introduce some D in it, anywhere. Now, as I understand it, I would need to begin with making `main` a D function, because D needs to initialise the runtime. Is this correct? Another possibility might be in dlopen'able functions. Currently Octave uses so-called oct functions, which are nothing more than C++ object code that is dynamically loaded by the interpreter at runtime. They are compiled to the Octave C++ API, but we also have a Matlab-compatible C API that perhaps could be more amenable for D-ification. What are your ideas? If you would like to expose C function and type declarations to D, you could take a look at DPP, which allows you to just #include a C header. If you encounter a bug, please file an issue and in time we will fix it. Does not yet work for C++ except in some cases. https://github.com/atilaneves/dpp
Re: Is it feasible to slowly rewrite a C++ codebase in D?
On Wednesday, 20 June 2018 at 18:47:10 UTC, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: Now, as I understand it, I would need to begin with making `main` a D function, because D needs to initialise the runtime. Is this correct? No. Some initialization is required if you use the GC, as I understand it. But there's no rule it has to be done in a D main function, you can initialize it from anywhere you like. And if you avoid using stuff that requires the runtime (I'm not sure what it constitutes in addition to GC. Perhaps classes, perhaps typeid, perhaps static constructors and destructors) you do not need to initialize it. -betterC style stuff can be done without it, and as I said it does not need the -betterC switch anymore, at least in LDC.
Re: Is it feasible to slowly rewrite a C++ codebase in D?
On Thursday, 12 July 2018 at 15:12:51 UTC, Seb wrote: it might also be feasible to simply use normal D. Have you already tried this? There's no strict distinction between using D normally and in systems programming fashion for me, because my main function isn't written in D. But in practice it's systems-style code. I mostly use stdc suff which can conveniently link into libraries coming with Emscripten, and std.range and std.algorithm, which do not require instantiations. There are a few instantiated thing from DRuntime and Phobos too, at least slice copying and stuff from std.random. I do not use the GC, nor anything else which has required to call a global initializator. I know about Vladimir's d-scripten tools library which would help, but it's based on Alawains library copyleft library, which makes also Vladimir's work copyleft, so I won't use it.
Re: Is it feasible to slowly rewrite a C++ codebase in D?
On Wednesday, 11 July 2018 at 20:38:13 UTC, Dukc wrote: On Wednesday, 11 July 2018 at 19:41:37 UTC, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: Just getting it into -betterC territory seems like a very daunting task. You do not need -betterC anymore. At least the LDC frontend will only add linking hooks for what you use, -betterC or no. No need build a stub runtime anymore or give a switch to the compiler to not use the default one. I know because I compile to JavaScript: first to LLVM bitcode, then manual link (with llvm-link), then to JavaScript using Emscripten. I only have to compile those parts of DRuntime and Phobos I use. Its unlikely I could even have a stub runtime to work, so this is the only reason I can use D in my web page to any real degree. Also since 2.079 the GC (and many parts of Phobos) get lazily initialized, so while I think there are still some features that might require initialization, it might also be feasible to simply use normal D. Have you already tried this?
Re: Is it feasible to slowly rewrite a C++ codebase in D?
On Wednesday, 11 July 2018 at 19:41:37 UTC, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: Just getting it into -betterC territory seems like a very daunting task. You do not need -betterC anymore. At least the LDC frontend will only add linking hooks for what you use, -betterC or no. No need build a stub runtime anymore or give a switch to the compiler to not use the default one. I know because I compile to JavaScript: first to LLVM bitcode, then manual link (with llvm-link), then to JavaScript using Emscripten. I only have to compile those parts of DRuntime and Phobos I use. Its unlikely I could even have a stub runtime to work, so this is the only reason I can use D in my web page to any real degree.
Re: Is it feasible to slowly rewrite a C++ codebase in D?
On Tuesday, 10 July 2018 at 20:28:00 UTC, Seb wrote: Maybe looking at the recent DMD Backend to D conversion PRs (https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Apr+label%3A%22D+Conversion%22+) helps? Here -betterC is used. Octave is so far from -betterC, though. It's very C++-heavy, with C++11 features being used since the last couple of years. It's an old codebase that started circa 1992. Just getting it into -betterC territory seems like a very daunting task.
Re: Is it feasible to slowly rewrite a C++ codebase in D?
On Wednesday, 20 June 2018 at 18:47:10 UTC, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: I'm specifically thinking of the GNU Octave codebase: http://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/file/@ It's a fairly old and complicated C++ codebase. I would like to see if I could slowly introduce some D in it, anywhere. Now, as I understand it, I would need to begin with making `main` a D function, because D needs to initialise the runtime. Is this correct? Another possibility might be in dlopen'able functions. Currently Octave uses so-called oct functions, which are nothing more than C++ object code that is dynamically loaded by the interpreter at runtime. They are compiled to the Octave C++ API, but we also have a Matlab-compatible C API that perhaps could be more amenable for D-ification. What are your ideas? Maybe looking at the recent DMD Backend to D conversion PRs (https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Apr+label%3A%22D+Conversion%22+) helps? Here -betterC is used. The frontend was automatically converted to D a few years ago (https://github.com/dlang/dmd/tree/last-cdmd/src/magicport), though magicport was a bit specific to DMD's codebase.
Re: Is it feasible to slowly rewrite a C++ codebase in D?
On Wednesday, 20 June 2018 at 19:57:55 UTC, jmh530 wrote: I'm not sure adding D to the GNU Octave code base is necessarily the biggest value add... I'm daydreaming of being able to rewrite all of Octave in D. I just was trying to think of where to start.
Re: Is it feasible to slowly rewrite a C++ codebase in D?
On Wednesday, 20 June 2018 at 19:57:55 UTC, jmh530 wrote: I suppose that. [snip] I suppose that would be good.
Re: Is it feasible to slowly rewrite a C++ codebase in D?
On Wednesday, 20 June 2018 at 18:47:10 UTC, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: I'm specifically thinking of the GNU Octave codebase: http://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/file/@ It's a fairly old and complicated C++ codebase. I would like to see if I could slowly introduce some D in it, anywhere. - This can be a problem if the project is very active. This issue was noticed by the people who converted DMD compiler from C++ to D and finally a dedicated tool was used, improved until some CI tests passed. Now, as I understand it, I would need to begin with making `main` a D function, because D needs to initialise the runtime. Is this correct? - The runtime can be initialized by hand if it's required, see core.runtime.Runtime.initialize()
Re: Is it feasible to slowly rewrite a C++ codebase in D?
On Wednesday, 20 June 2018 at 18:47:10 UTC, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: I'm specifically thinking of the GNU Octave codebase: http://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/file/@ It's a fairly old and complicated C++ codebase. I would like to see if I could slowly introduce some D in it, anywhere. Now, as I understand it, I would need to begin with making `main` a D function, because D needs to initialise the runtime. Is this correct? Another possibility might be in dlopen'able functions. Currently Octave uses so-called oct functions, which are nothing more than C++ object code that is dynamically loaded by the interpreter at runtime. They are compiled to the Octave C++ API, but we also have a Matlab-compatible C API that perhaps could be more amenable for D-ification. What are your ideas? I'm a little confused...you mean like embedr [1, 2] and pyd [3], but for Octave and Matlab? The idea would that you could write functions in D and call them in Matlab/Octave, and vice-versa. I suppose that. I'm not sure adding D to the GNU Octave code base is necessarily the biggest value add... There was an old forum post years ago on the subject [4], but the link to the repository is dead. [1] https://bitbucket.org/bachmeil/embedr [2] https://github.com/bdilday/embedr [3] https://code.dlang.org/packages/pyd [4] https://forum.dlang.org/thread/op.vhjavyoc3nc...@enigma.fem.tu-ilmenau.de
Re: Is it feasible to slowly rewrite a C++ codebase in D?
On Wednesday, 20 June 2018 at 18:47:10 UTC, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: I'm specifically thinking of the GNU Octave codebase: http://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/file/@ It's a fairly old and complicated C++ codebase. I would like to see if I could slowly introduce some D in it, anywhere. Now, as I understand it, I would need to begin with making `main` a D function, because D needs to initialise the runtime. Is this correct? With respect to this part of your question, you might want to check out https://dlang.org/spec/betterc.html and especially the limitations https://dlang.org/spec/betterc.html#consequences It shouldn't take much to do this, but the limitations of betterC are not minor.
Re: Is it feasible to slowly rewrite a C++ codebase in D?
On Wednesday, 20 June 2018 at 18:47:10 UTC, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: I'm specifically thinking of the GNU Octave codebase: http://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/file/@ It's a fairly old and complicated C++ codebase. I would like to see if I could slowly introduce some D in it, anywhere. Now, as I understand it, I would need to begin with making `main` a D function, because D needs to initialise the runtime. Is this correct? Another possibility might be in dlopen'able functions. Currently Octave uses so-called oct functions, which are nothing more than C++ object code that is dynamically loaded by the interpreter at runtime. They are compiled to the Octave C++ API, but we also have a Matlab-compatible C API that perhaps could be more amenable for D-ification. What are your ideas? I've looked into this a bit, but haven't had time to do anything with it. My opinion is that the starting point is to add functionality using Oct-Files. The reason is that it is the simplest way to do so in a way that you can share your work with others. That allows you to call into the Octave API and reuse that code. Given the recent work on C++ interoperability, I think this strategy is the clear winner.
