== Quote from Jordi ([email protected])'s article > On 08/18/2010 03:07 AM, dsimcha wrote: > > == Quote from Iain Buclaw ([email protected])'s article > >> Current developments that are taking priority first (in order) are: > >> * Updating/Uploading packages in Debian and Ubuntu - as of writing, package > >> is currently being built in Debian, with a predicted success across all 14 > >> supported architectures.>:-) > >> * Port GDC to GCC-4.4 - nearly done, with one or two show-stoppers > >> remaining > >> with static chain decls and exprs. > >> * Sort out the outstanding merges of D 1.062 and 1.063 - which somewhere > >> along the line lost 64bit support. !!! - barely even started looking into > >> it > >> yet. > >> Current blockers that need to be organised out (in my opinion) before D2 > >> can > >> be emerged are: > >> * Integration into current GCC patches, which will require a regeneration > >> of > >> _all_ patches in the patch directory (even those I cannot account for as > >> working). > >> * Figuring out what internals need to be migrated from the current phobos2 > >> directory, what needs to keep. > >> * A general consensus needs to be reached on how we should handle ASM > >> version specifiers. Gnu_InlineAsmX86? D_InlineAsmX86? 64bit? Sort out* A general consensus needs to be reached on how we should handle ASM version > >> calling conventions? > >> * GDC Driver updates to tie the whole thing together - the easy bit. ;-) > >> Anything I missed? Should I be pushing D2 further up the stack of my list > >> of > >> TODOs? > >> Regards > > > > It's tough to say where D2 support should be prioritized relative to > > packaging, D1 > > fixes, general infrastructure improvements, etc. My biased opinion (since I > > personally don't use D1 and have tons of code written for the latest > > versions of > > D2) is that getting a basically-working D2.048 compiler is by far the > > highest > > priority. I personally (definitely NOT speaking for the rest of the > > community) > > have no use whatsoever for a D compiler that doesn't work with code written > > for > > DMD 2.048. However, I'm sure D1 users would beg to differ. I guess it > > really > > comes down to the ratio of D1 users to D2 users.> > > > I just wanted to drop a small note to say i totally agree with dsimcha > on prioritizing the version upgrades for gdc for d2. This would really > strengthen D in general.
I think it's pretty safe to say now that all other priorities I gave mention to a month ago have been done and dusted. I've switched all my builds to D2 (so you could say that I'm solely working on it now), and druntime is getting on a little bit better with non-i386 architectures - having removed/replaced most problematic code. Thanks to everyone who's been giving me feedback on that. I suppose the next step is to get on with the next frontend merge, 2.021. Though admittedly it wouldn't have taken this long if the changes weren't so breaking. ;-)
