On Saturday, 7 September 2013 at 05:35:04 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
I find that it's much more convincing for me to say "feature X
is
broken, here's the code change to make it better", than to say
"feature
X is broken, D sucks, you lazy bums better start working to fix
X or
else I'm leaving". It
On Sat, Sep 07, 2013 at 05:35:48AM +0200, Ramon wrote:
[...]
> I'm sorry, honestly sorry, that I myself can not (yet) contribute
> much more than thoughts and constructive(!) criticism. I'm working
> on it and - thanks to Iain (I was just a split second away from
> leaving D) - I stayed. That's not
On Saturday, 7 September 2013 at 00:05:08 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 19:24:22 UTC, Ramon wrote:
Frankly, when hacking the kernel you use C, period. There are
alternatives, Ada for instance but they have a price tag too.
And
D, with all the warm feelings we might have for
On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 19:24:22 UTC, Ramon wrote:
Frankly, when hacking the kernel you use C, period. There are
alternatives, Ada for instance but they have a price tag too.
And
D, with all the warm feelings we might have for it, is not one
of
those alternatives.
Lot of confusion com
eles
Risking to find myself in hot water ...
I think that gc is grossly overestimated and it's too often
painted in promised land colours. For one, there are, of course,
trade offs; sometimes gc's advantages outweigh the disadvantages,
sometimes not and close to hardware basically hardly ever
On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 19:24:22 UTC, Ramon wrote:
Let's be honest. D, as Iain correctly indicated, is a userland
language
Unfortunately, in this case, it brings to my actual workplace
nothing more than does C#. And we already use the latter for GUI
and so on. When really needed some p
On 2013-09-06 11:35, eles wrote:
I am starting a new thread, since I am afraid that the other one will
become too cluttered with issues...
It is about this OS kernel:
http://wiki.osdev.org/D_Bare_Bones
I tried to duplicate the steps. However, on my x86_64 machine, the
actual commands that I ha
OK, OK, completely overblown but for the sake of the point: Well,
if you bend and strip down Clarion or php far enough, you might
use it for
a kernel, too.
Frankly, when hacking the kernel you use C, period. There are
alternatives, Ada for instance but they have a price tag too. And
D, with all
On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 17:09:03 UTC, Leandro Lucarella
wrote:
eles, el 6 de September a las 16:20 me escribiste:
On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 14:09:15 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>On 6 September 2013 14:13, Dicebot wrote:
>>On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 12:25:56 UTC, eles wrote:
>>>
>>>
eles, el 6 de September a las 16:20 me escribiste:
> On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 14:09:15 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> >On 6 September 2013 14:13, Dicebot wrote:
> >>On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 12:25:56 UTC, eles wrote:
> >>>
> >>>On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 10:43:38 UTC, Iain Buclaw
> >>>w
On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 13:47:47 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
I think you need own light-weight runtime stubs linked with the
binary. Adam has done some nice experiments in that direction :
http://arsdnet.net/dcode/minimal.zip
Thank you, you are kind, I hope to have an working example. But,
wit
On 6 September 2013 14:34, eles wrote:
> On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 10:43:38 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>
>> On 6 September 2013 10:35, eles wrote:
>> Back to volatile the only (faintly close) alternative is 'shared'.
>
>
> After some thinking, it wasn't about synchronization between thread
On 6 September 2013 14:13, Dicebot wrote:
> On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 12:25:56 UTC, eles wrote:
>>
>> On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 10:43:38 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>>
>>> On 6 September 2013 10:35, eles wrote:
>>> But there's no equivalent to volatile statements other than
>>> implementi
On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 14:09:15 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
And all I'm saying is that if you want to use it on bare metal
then
you have to strip out phobos and re-implement everything from
druntime.
I am mostly aware of this and have studied Xomb sources and
runtime reimplementation quit
On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 14:10:06 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
On 6 September 2013 14:34, eles wrote:
On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 10:43:38 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
On 6 September 2013 10:35, eles wrote:
*p=3;
a=*p;
'p' should be marked as 'shared' in this instance.
That will help,
On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 14:09:15 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
On 6 September 2013 14:13, Dicebot wrote:
On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 12:25:56 UTC, eles wrote:
On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 10:43:38 UTC, Iain Buclaw
wrote:
On 6 September 2013 10:35, eles wrote:
And all I'm saying is t
On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 13:34:33 UTC, eles wrote:
Any clues?
I think you need own light-weight runtime stubs linked with the
binary. Adam has done some nice experiments in that direction :
http://arsdnet.net/dcode/minimal.zip
On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 10:43:38 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
On 6 September 2013 10:35, eles wrote:
Back to volatile the only (faintly close) alternative is
'shared'.
After some thinking, it wasn't about synchronization between
threads as the error message was misleading. Was not abou
On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 12:25:56 UTC, eles wrote:
On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 10:43:38 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
On 6 September 2013 10:35, eles wrote:
But there's no equivalent to volatile statements other than
implementing your own low level thread library for use in
kernel-land
to
On 6 September 2013 13:25, eles wrote:
> On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 10:43:38 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>
>> On 6 September 2013 10:35, eles wrote:
>> But there's no equivalent to volatile statements other than
>> implementing your own low level thread library for use in kernel-land
>> to all
On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 10:43:38 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
On 6 September 2013 10:35, eles wrote:
But there's no equivalent to volatile statements other than
implementing your own low level thread library for use in
kernel-land
to allow synchronized to work properly.
Frankly, but each
On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 10:35:15 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
On 6 September 2013 10:15, eles wrote:
On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 07:55:39 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
On 6 September 2013 08:32, eles wrote:
On Thursday, 5 September 2013 at 23:49:18 UTC, Ramon wrote:
I'll have to give it a t
On 6 September 2013 10:35, eles wrote:
> I am starting a new thread, since I am afraid that the other one will become
> too cluttered with issues...
>
> It is about this OS kernel:
>
> http://wiki.osdev.org/D_Bare_Bones
>
> I tried to duplicate the steps. However, on my x86_64 machine, the actual
On 6 September 2013 10:15, eles wrote:
> On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 07:55:39 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>
>> On 6 September 2013 08:32, eles wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thursday, 5 September 2013 at 23:49:18 UTC, Ramon wrote:
>>
>> In today's gdc implementation (back then I believe that was for D1) -
>>
I am starting a new thread, since I am afraid that the other one
will become too cluttered with issues...
It is about this OS kernel:
http://wiki.osdev.org/D_Bare_Bones
I tried to duplicate the steps. However, on my x86_64 machine,
the actual commands that I had to use are:
$nasm -f elf -o
On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 07:55:39 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
On 6 September 2013 08:32, eles wrote:
On Thursday, 5 September 2013 at 23:49:18 UTC, Ramon wrote:
In today's gdc implementation (back then I believe that was for
D1) -
you'd have to use -fno-emit-moduleinfo (maybe I should rever
On 6 September 2013 08:32, eles wrote:
> On Thursday, 5 September 2013 at 23:49:18 UTC, Ramon wrote:
>>
>> On D's, and in particular GDC's, way to conquer the world there will
>> evidently be many newbies to notice D, look at it, be drawn to it (and be
>> happily trapped).
>>
>> I am such a newbie
On 6 September 2013 08:34, Ramon wrote:
> On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 07:02:56 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>
>>
>> Dynamic arrays are just structs with a length and ptr field. So when
>> you invoke '.length' in the debugger you aren't calling a method, you
>> are just retrieving the type's field
On Thursday, 5 September 2013 at 23:49:18 UTC, Ramon wrote:
On D's, and in particular GDC's, way to conquer the world there
will evidently be many newbies to notice D, look at it, be
drawn to it (and be happily trapped).
I am such a newbie and the idea behind this thread is to
collect all the
On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 07:02:56 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
Dynamic arrays are just structs with a length and ptr field.
So when
you invoke '.length' in the debugger you aren't calling a
method, you
are just retrieving the type's field value.
Currently, the only fancy thing the gdb does
On 6 September 2013 01:59, Ramon wrote:
> On Thursday, 5 September 2013 at 23:58:06 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>
> Thanks and
>
>
>> @Iain: on that note, it looks like gdb thinks it's debugging C++, but D
>> doesn't have anything called 'operator[]'. It would be Really Nice if we
>> could somehow coax
31 matches
Mail list logo
