On 09/20/2010 08:48 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
== Quote from Jordi (jo...@rovira.cat)'s article
On 08/18/2010 03:07 AM, dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Iain Buclaw (ibuc...@ubuntu.com)'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.
;-)
Sound great. If i were to help on this, what would be the easiest task
to do? I guess merging revisions of druntime and phobos should be easier
than dmd itself, as they might have less modifications.
Actually i have tried merging with a 3-way merge tool the druntime in
2.020 and 2.021 with the current gdc and it didn't seem complicated.
What do you use for testing it? dstress?
j.
