• Jan Knepper (9/9) Jul 05 2002 OK, I put a little pressure on the kettle and finished (more or less)
• andy (2/15) Jul 08 2002
• Jan Knepper (3/22) Jul 08 2002 Looked at it yet?
• ben (6/31) Jul 09 2002 Hello Jan and Andy
• ben (5/17) Jul 09 2002 Hello Jan
• Jan Knepper (6/23) Jul 09 2002 Ben, I know about that example, but that goes with GCC 3.1. is what I
• ben (11/42) Jul 09 2002 Hello Jan
• Jan Knepper (12/54) Jul 09 2002 Hi Ben!
• andy (4/77) Jul 09 2002 Yeah, by the time we're done with the glue layer....3.1 will be done.

Jan Knepper <jan opend.org> writes:

OK, I put a little pressure on the kettle and finished (more or less) 
the toy2 front-end for GCC written in C++. The tarball is available at 
ftp://ftp.opend.org/

The build has been modified so toy2 will build with GCC as that was a 
concern also.

I guess now it is time to get serious about the 'glue' layer to glue 
Walter's D-front-end to the GCC-back-end.

Have fun!
Jan

andy <acoliver apache.org> writes:

tremendous I can't wait to look at it.

Jan Knepper wrote:
 OK, I put a little pressure on the kettle and finished (more or less) 
 the toy2 front-end for GCC written in C++. The tarball is available at 
 ftp://ftp.opend.org/
 
 The build has been modified so toy2 will build with GCC as that was a 
 concern also.
 
 I guess now it is time to get serious about the 'glue' layer to glue 
 Walter's D-front-end to the GCC-back-end.
 
 Have fun!
 Jan
 

Jan Knepper <jan opend.org> writes:

Looked at it yet?
Jan



andy wrote:
 tremendous I can't wait to look at it.
 
 Jan Knepper wrote:
 
 OK, I put a little pressure on the kettle and finished (more or less) 
 the toy2 front-end for GCC written in C++. The tarball is available at 
 ftp://ftp.opend.org/

 The build has been modified so toy2 will build with GCC as that was a 
 concern also.

 I guess now it is time to get serious about the 'glue' layer to glue 
 Walter's D-front-end to the GCC-back-end.

 Have fun!
 Jan

 
 

ben <zander echotech.ca> writes:

Hello Jan and Andy

I have been trying to figure out the tree for gcc, and I am pretty sure that 
I am in over my head, so If you don't hear alot from me that is why.. I am 
going to keep looking.. Thanks for putting this together Jan.. 

Later, Ben

Jan Knepper wrote:

 Looked at it yet?
 Jan
 
 
 
 andy wrote:
 tremendous I can't wait to look at it.
 
 Jan Knepper wrote:
 
 OK, I put a little pressure on the kettle and finished (more or less)
 the toy2 front-end for GCC written in C++. The tarball is available at
 ftp://ftp.opend.org/

 The build has been modified so toy2 will build with GCC as that was a
 concern also.

 I guess now it is time to get serious about the 'glue' layer to glue
 Walter's D-front-end to the GCC-back-end.

 Have fun!
 Jan

 

ben <zander echotech.ca> writes:

Jan Knepper wrote:

 OK, I put a little pressure on the kettle and finished (more or less)
 the toy2 front-end for GCC written in C++. The tarball is available at
 ftp://ftp.opend.org/
 
 The build has been modified so toy2 will build with GCC as that was a
 concern also.
 
 I guess now it is time to get serious about the 'glue' layer to glue
 Walter's D-front-end to the GCC-back-end.
 
 Have fun!
 Jan

Hello Jan

I am looking at your code now, one thing is that its for gcc-2.95.1.. I have 
a toy example from 3.1.. I can email it to you..

Later Ben

Jan Knepper <jan smartsoft.cc> writes:

Ben, I know about that example, but that goes with GCC 3.1. is what I
understood.
Since 3.1 is too much of a bleeding edge to be I decided to go with STABLE
2.95.1 for now...
Jan



ben wrote:

 Jan Knepper wrote:

 OK, I put a little pressure on the kettle and finished (more or less)
 the toy2 front-end for GCC written in C++. The tarball is available at
 ftp://ftp.opend.org/

 The build has been modified so toy2 will build with GCC as that was a
 concern also.

 I guess now it is time to get serious about the 'glue' layer to glue
 Walter's D-front-end to the GCC-back-end.

 Have fun!
 Jan

 Hello Jan

 I am looking at your code now, one thing is that its for gcc-2.95.1.. I have
 a toy example from 3.1.. I can email it to you..

 Later Ben

ben <zander echotech.ca> writes:

Hello Jan

I think in the 2.95 series 2.95.3 is the most stable.. But 3.1.1 is going to 
be out soon, and its getting closer to usable.. If its going to take us a 
long time to get d working, I would think by then 3.2 will be out and it 
will be farly solid (well hoping anyway).. Also note that most 
distributions are now working on there next release with 3.1.1.. There has 
been a large discussion about it in the gcc mailing list, and suse, redhat, 
mandrake, and I am sure there are other, slackware has it but its not the 
main compiler, but I would not be surprised if they also went with it.. 

Later, Ben

Jan Knepper wrote:

 Ben, I know about that example, but that goes with GCC 3.1. is what I
 understood.
 Since 3.1 is too much of a bleeding edge to be I decided to go with STABLE
 2.95.1 for now...
 Jan
 
 
 
 ben wrote:
 
 Jan Knepper wrote:

 OK, I put a little pressure on the kettle and finished (more or less)
 the toy2 front-end for GCC written in C++. The tarball is available at
 ftp://ftp.opend.org/

 The build has been modified so toy2 will build with GCC as that was a
 concern also.

 I guess now it is time to get serious about the 'glue' layer to glue
 Walter's D-front-end to the GCC-back-end.

 Have fun!
 Jan

 Hello Jan

 I am looking at your code now, one thing is that its for gcc-2.95.1.. I
 have a toy example from 3.1.. I can email it to you..

 Later Ben

Jan Knepper <jan smartsoft.cc> writes:

Hi Ben!

I know the 2.95.* series is the most stable. I just took 2.95.1 because that was
the version that matched the original toy.

I also know that 3.* is going to be out soon.

But have no worries as to which version is going to be used for D. I am sure
that upgrading D to a newer version of the back-end is not nearly going to be as
difficult as developing the initial GLUE layer.

I think before I start getting into that which will take a couple of weeks as I
am about to leave for China for a week, I probably will go with one of the later
versions (3.1) and they should be stable at the time the GLUE layer is done.

Jan



ben wrote:

 Hello Jan

 I think in the 2.95 series 2.95.3 is the most stable.. But 3.1.1 is going to
 be out soon, and its getting closer to usable.. If its going to take us a
 long time to get d working, I would think by then 3.2 will be out and it
 will be farly solid (well hoping anyway).. Also note that most
 distributions are now working on there next release with 3.1.1.. There has
 been a large discussion about it in the gcc mailing list, and suse, redhat,
 mandrake, and I am sure there are other, slackware has it but its not the
 main compiler, but I would not be surprised if they also went with it..

 Later, Ben

 Jan Knepper wrote:

 Ben, I know about that example, but that goes with GCC 3.1. is what I
 understood.
 Since 3.1 is too much of a bleeding edge to be I decided to go with STABLE
 2.95.1 for now...
 Jan



 ben wrote:

 Jan Knepper wrote:

 OK, I put a little pressure on the kettle and finished (more or less)
 the toy2 front-end for GCC written in C++. The tarball is available at
 ftp://ftp.opend.org/

 The build has been modified so toy2 will build with GCC as that was a
 concern also.

 I guess now it is time to get serious about the 'glue' layer to glue
 Walter's D-front-end to the GCC-back-end.

 Have fun!
 Jan

 Hello Jan

 I am looking at your code now, one thing is that its for gcc-2.95.1.. I
 have a toy example from 3.1.. I can email it to you..

 Later Ben

andy <acoliver apache.org> writes:

Yeah, by the time we're done with the glue layer....3.1 will be done.

I'll be switching this onto the long cycle soon.

-Andy

Jan Knepper wrote:
 Hi Ben!
 
 I know the 2.95.* series is the most stable. I just took 2.95.1 because that
was
 the version that matched the original toy.
 
 I also know that 3.* is going to be out soon.
 
 But have no worries as to which version is going to be used for D. I am sure
 that upgrading D to a newer version of the back-end is not nearly going to be
as
 difficult as developing the initial GLUE layer.
 
 I think before I start getting into that which will take a couple of weeks as I
 am about to leave for China for a week, I probably will go with one of the
later
 versions (3.1) and they should be stable at the time the GLUE layer is done.
 
 Jan
 
 
 
 ben wrote:
 
 
Hello Jan

I think in the 2.95 series 2.95.3 is the most stable.. But 3.1.1 is going to
be out soon, and its getting closer to usable.. If its going to take us a
long time to get d working, I would think by then 3.2 will be out and it
will be farly solid (well hoping anyway).. Also note that most
distributions are now working on there next release with 3.1.1.. There has
been a large discussion about it in the gcc mailing list, and suse, redhat,
mandrake, and I am sure there are other, slackware has it but its not the
main compiler, but I would not be surprised if they also went with it..

Later, Ben

Jan Knepper wrote:


Ben, I know about that example, but that goes with GCC 3.1. is what I
understood.
Since 3.1 is too much of a bleeding edge to be I decided to go with STABLE
2.95.1 for now...
Jan



ben wrote:


Jan Knepper wrote:


OK, I put a little pressure on the kettle and finished (more or less)
the toy2 front-end for GCC written in C++. The tarball is available at
ftp://ftp.opend.org/

The build has been modified so toy2 will build with GCC as that was a
concern also.

I guess now it is time to get serious about the 'glue' layer to glue
Walter's D-front-end to the GCC-back-end.

Have fun!
Jan

Hello Jan

I am looking at your code now, one thing is that its for gcc-2.95.1.. I
have a toy example from 3.1.. I can email it to you..

Later Ben