On Thu, 04 Jun 2015 06:49:00 -0700, Dan Olson wrote:
> ketmar writes:
>
>> On Thu, 04 Jun 2015 00:15:37 -0700, Dan Olson wrote:
>>
>>> Starting a pull request for ARM and grabbed gdc master, but not sure
>>> what gcc it likes. I tried gcc-5.1 but
>>>
>>> $ ./setup-gcc.sh ../gcc-5.1.0 found gcc
On Thu, 04 Jun 2015 00:15:37 -0700, Dan Olson wrote:
> Starting a pull request for ARM and grabbed gdc master, but not sure
> what gcc it likes. I tried gcc-5.1 but
>
> $ ./setup-gcc.sh ../gcc-5.1.0 found gcc version 5 This version of GCC
> (5) is not supported.
make sure that you switched to '
On Thu, 28 May 2015 02:12:10 +, Mike wrote:
> Shouldn't it be able to inline the "add" function since the source code
> is there in the testInline.d file? Should I file a bug?
actually, the code is not available, as ".d" file is treated like ".di"
file here, i.e. file with only interface de
On Thu, 14 May 2015 19:02:48 +0200, Johannes Pfau wrote:
> OTOH I don't know the exact rules for += but intuitively it should first
> evaluate the RHS, then load the LHS.
this is not the case for `~=` (see [1]). yet i believe that there will be
myriads of reasons from DMD core team to decide tha
On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 22:40:16 +, Iain Buclaw via D.gnu wrote:
> On 18 February 2015 at 22:31, ketmar via D.gnu
> wrote:
>> (ah, well, you can't even build shared phobos with GDC yet), and...
>>
>>
> True story, GDC got there first with shared library support
On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 22:13:04 +, Jeremy DeHaan wrote:
> On Monday, 9 February 2015 at 19:24:22 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>> GDC and DMD are not ABI compatible. There are many reasons why this is
>> so, but the one that is likely affecting you is because DMD emits
>> references to symbols that do
On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 06:09:33 +0100, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> ketmar, el 10 de February a las 11:44 me escribiste:
>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 09:07:14 +0100, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>>
>> > On 2015-02-09 19:56, ketmar wrote:
>> >
>> >> DMD is not using GCC, only 'ld' from binutils.
>> >
>> > Actuall
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 09:07:14 +0100, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2015-02-09 19:56, ketmar wrote:
>
>> DMD is not using GCC, only 'ld' from binutils.
>
> Actually, DMD _is_ using GCC to link.
yes. sorry for misinformation, i was sure that it calls 'ld' directly.
signature.asc
Description: PGP sig
On Mon, 09 Feb 2015 17:56:53 +, Jeremy DeHaan wrote:
> I'm pretty sure I already know the answer to this, however I just wanted
> to ask to make sure.
>
> I was talking with someone the other day. They were using Linux and
> tried to link static libraries built with DMD during a build with GD
On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 11:00:04 +0100, Johannes Pfau wrote:
> I thought you have ready to use patches. The nogc/nothrow changes are
> useful if they're not in mainline druntime yet but I don't really have
> the time to refactor such patches. So if you have ready to use patches
> against mainline plea
On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 23:35:55 +0100, Johannes Pfau wrote:
> Am Sat, 24 Jan 2015 13:07:43 + (UTC)
> schrieb ketmar :
>
>> On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 12:48:27 +, Iain Buclaw via D.gnu wrote:
>>
>> >> Sorry, I already updated the branches as I needed a 4.9.2 backport
>> >> for testing. I should pro
On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 12:48:27 +, Iain Buclaw via D.gnu wrote:
>> Sorry, I already updated the branches as I needed a 4.9.2 backport for
>> testing. I should probably think twice about this next time :-)
>
> Nah - I shouldn't have to have my finger dipped in everything. It's
> just given me a
On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 13:33:50 +0100, Johannes Pfau wrote:
> Sorry, I already updated the branches as I needed a 4.9.2 backport for
> testing. I should probably think twice about this next time :-)
i think that it was the right move. this way people who are using gcc 4.9
(me ;-) can test it too. n
On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 08:47:25 +, Iain Buclaw via D.gnu wrote:
> On 24 Jan 2015 08:40, "Johannes Pfau via D.gnu"
> wrote:
>>
>> Am Sat, 24 Jan 2015 06:32:57 + (UTC)
>> schrieb ketmar :
>>
>> > i see that 2.066.1 is landed in GDC (heh, that was sudden! had to fix
>> > almost all my private p
i see that 2.066.1 is landed in GDC (heh, that was sudden! had to fix
almost all my private patches...). is it still in testing stage, or it's
already fully usable? and if it's usable, i believe that it worth
announcing in "D.announce" NG.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 17:04:16 +
"Timo Sintonen via D.gnu" wrote:
> This came to my mind while reading the other list.
> Compiling gdc automatically enables compiling c++. This is
> natural because gdc is made with c++.
> When making a cross compiler only host c++ is needed, not the
> target
On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 13:01:04 +0100
"Johannes Pfau via D.gnu" wrote:
> After some google-fu:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192
> Considering this was filed in 2000 I'd say it's not very likely to get
> fixed soon :-(
and it's so forgotten that they have stupid portostory attached
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 13:39:52 +
"Koz Ross via D.gnu" wrote:
s/backend/frontend/ of course. sorry.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 13:39:52 +
"Koz Ross via D.gnu" wrote:
> First-off, I would like to thank everyone who made GDC - as a
> supporter of free software, it's good to have a compiler that
> doesn't have a proprietary back-end for a language I like as much
> as D.
>
> Now, I'm an avid Emacs
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 11:51:18 +
"Mike via D.gnu" wrote:
> I see the instructions below for cleaning GDC and
> libphobos/libdruntime, but to clean GCC also, can we just do
> `make clean`?
i think we can. but there is no much sense to rebuild GCC each time,
GDC just using it as a kind of backe
On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 00:29:32 +
"Mike via D.gnu" wrote:
> I'm wondering, if some of you that do development on GDC could
> briefly describe how you set up your development environment.
for me, this is a set of ugly-loking scripts which basically does what
wiki told me about building gdc. i.e.
On Sun, 28 Sep 2014 16:39:29 +
"Ledd via D.gnu" wrote:
> That's because you are not thinking about the "shipping date" as
> a feature, you are not even considering it as an option.
yes, 'cause FOSS projects has no "shipping dates".
> You will never get 1 single customer if you say "I can do
On Sun, 28 Sep 2014 14:50:25 +0200
"Leandro Lucarella via D.gnu" wrote:
> I'm sorry, but at least the Sociomantic example is not a good one to
> defend your point.
ok, two companies. ;-) it still beats "noone".
> GCC releases more or less every year a new minor version. I think
> introducing new
On Sun, 28 Sep 2014 08:44:20 +
"Ledd via D.gnu" wrote:
> My point being that for the majority of people, the ones that
> work on open source projects, large projects, productions for the
> masses, a stable language and a predictable release cycle, is
> more valuable then a cutting-edge featur
On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 11:47:33 +
"Ledd via D.gnu" wrote:
> I don't think that the gcc team is slow on releasing new releases
> and patches
they are much slower than D team.
> I think that on one hand it's true that D is
> currently a rapidly-changing language, but this also prevents a
> gai
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 23:06:51 +
" via D.gnu" wrote:
> http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=160
>
> --- Comment #2 from Peter Remmers ---
> Testing this on linux with a more recent version of GDC. The alias
> template is accepted while the variable templates still fail.
no failure w
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 13:53:58 +
"Ledd via D.gnu" wrote:
> I wonder if there are plans to add the support for D in the
> official releases of gcc .
it's good as the "sign of official acceptance", but GCC release cycle
is too slow for D. i'm very unsure if making gdc part of gcc will do
any goo
On Mon, 8 Sep 2014 08:13:46 +0100
"Iain Buclaw via D.gnu" wrote:
ok, i started. moved toDebug() and most of toDt() to visitor. yet
Expression::toElem() scares me alot (wow, it's 300kb!). but i hope to
finish it in week or two (i have some free time now and can spend it on
porting).
i'm keeping p
On Mon, 8 Sep 2014 08:13:46 +0100
"Iain Buclaw via D.gnu" wrote:
> Doing these individual glue changes one at a time before 2.066-proper
> seems like a reasonable thing to do rather than trying to do all at
> once. And any patches to do such conversions would be welcome.
i tried to port lexer fr
On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 17:23:22 +
""Nordlöw" via D.gnu" wrote:
> Thanks! BTW: What's the current status on GDC in terms of
> stability and DMD version? Is it at 2.065?
2.065 at the time of it's release, with all it's bugs and glory.
otherwise gdc is very stable; i'm using it as my primary compi
On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 15:49:20 +
""Nordlöw" via D.gnu" wrote:
> Have anyone put together a build script for
> downloading/git-cloning and building a particular branch, say
> gdc-4.9, of GDC?
yes, i'm using such script. ;-)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 20:49:24 +
"Juanjo Alvarez via D.gnu" wrote:
it's a bug in std.array that was fixed after 2.065 lands in GDC.
it's commit ce7d4ed26a81ad44218f8948e5f83f36bc461029
you can either apply this change manually or wait until 2.066 lands.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signatu
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 12:23:44 +
"Dicebot via D.gnu" wrote:
and there is no support for 2.066 yet, it will take at least month (or
maybe three) to land. or maybe more. ;-)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 12:23:44 +
"Dicebot via D.gnu" wrote:
> what is the most simple way to check last supported
> version in repo? (4.9 branch)
it's in file gcc/d/VERSION
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, 16 Aug 2014 07:06:34 +
"Timo Sintonen via D.gnu" wrote:
> structs wasting memory. Is there any way to omit them?
maybe this will work:
struct A {
int n = void;
uint[2] a = void;
...and so on for all fields
}
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 16:25:40 +
"Iain Buclaw via D.gnu" wrote:
> Potential files up for deletion include:
> - doc.c: Because people should be using the (far) superior DDox
> [1].
oh, no, please leave docs module! that was the thing that helps me to
actually write documentation for my code. i
On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 10:27:37 +0100
"Iain Buclaw via D.gnu" wrote:
Try compiling with -femit-templates to force the behaviour of D
prior
to 2.064, see this bug report:
ah, just discovered the strange thing: if i pass hello.o after
base.o
from LuaD, not before, everything is linking without an
if i take LuaD[1] and then try to compile it as a set of separate
.o files, gdc refuses to link any LuaD sample with message:
hello.o:(.data._D30TypeInfo_S4luad4base9LuaObject6__initZ[_D30TypeInfo_S4luad4base9LuaObject6__initZ]+0x1c):
undefined reference to
`_D4luad4base9LuaObject11__xopEqualsFK
the thing is: i have a file where i want to use some one-byte
encodings which looks like "bad utf-8". compiler complains even
if i'm using that in comments (and i want such encodings in
one-byte strings too!). can i somehow force it to shut up and
just accept what i wrote?
yes, i know that "j
39 matches
Mail list logo
