On 8 September 2013 17:04, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
wrote:
> On 08/09/13 15:04, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>
>> This could be done - don't like the name though. ;)
>
>
> smalld... ? :-)
>
libdrt?
Like libdruntime, but based on a minimalist contents of /rt/ :o)
--
Iain Buclaw
*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c
On 08/09/13 15:04, Iain Buclaw wrote:
This could be done - don't like the name though. ;)
smalld... ? :-)
On 8 September 2013 13:00, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
wrote:
> On 06/09/13 15:11, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>
>> It has always been the case that if you want to enter kernel-space
>> with D, you have to drop phobos and implement a more low level
>> druntime. For instance, the GC that comes with D is wholl
On 07/09/13 07:33, 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 feels good to rant and get it
On 06/09/13 15:11, Iain Buclaw wrote:
It has always been the case that if you want to enter kernel-space
with D, you have to drop phobos and implement a more low level
druntime. For instance, the GC that comes with D is wholly infeasible
for use inside a kernel .
To what extent can that situat
On Sat, Sep 07, 2013 at 08:37:02AM +0200, Ramon wrote:
> 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
On 7 September 2013 00:17, Ramon wrote:
> - It's not as consistent as I'd like it to be. phobos seems, uhm, worthy a
> discussion e.g. concerning at least its design (e.g. layers, OS interface),
> safety has been a concern but might have profitted by learning more from
> other languages, etc. Simi
On 6 September 2013 19:40, eles wrote:
> 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
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 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
30 matches
Mail list logo
