D.gnu - D.2.062 merge
- Iain Buclaw (5/5) Feb 18 2013 I do believe I saw a new release mentioned in announcements. So
- Iain Buclaw (9/13) Feb 19 2013 Once again, this is proving to be an [expletive] pain. I know Walter ha...
- eles (7/14) Feb 20 2013 Won't be better to merge rather smaller increments? For example,
- Iain Buclaw (8/20) Feb 20 2013 That's mid to long term goal (we currently do the same with gcc
- Iain Buclaw (15/36) Feb 20 2013 OK, D Frontend is merged. Phobos and Druntime are yet to be updated, so
- Iain Buclaw (9/45) Feb 21 2013 Phobos/Druntime merged.
I do believe I saw a new release mentioned in announcements. So this will be a priority to get done first and finished as soon as possible. Regards Iain.
Feb 18 2013
On 18 February 2013 08:16, Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> wrote:I do believe I saw a new release mentioned in announcements. So this will be a priority to get done first and finished as soon as possible. Regards Iain.Once again, this is proving to be an [expletive] pain. I know Walter has been tying to help out with refactoring code, but it touches very sensitive areas that break easily. I have it in the works to replace these areas in gdc (see thread on removing toobj, typinf, and todt) - but it looks like things will be worse before they start improving again on this instance. -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
Feb 19 2013
On Tuesday, 19 February 2013 at 11:33:59 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:On 18 February 2013 08:16, Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> wrote: I have it in the works to replace these areas in gdc (see thread on removing toobj, typinf, and todt) - but it looks like things will be worse before they start improving again on this instance.Won't be better to merge rather smaller increments? For example, merging one commit (from dmd) at a time? That way, the gdc will follow the dmd commit by commit, and not only release by release. I hope this would bring easier merging, as less code changes are required. What do you think?
Feb 20 2013
Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> On 20 February 2013 08:05, eles <eles eles.com> wrote:On Tuesday, 19 February 2013 at 11:33:59 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:That's mid to long term goal (we currently do the same with gcc development, for instance). But not until have dropped the remainder dmd backend dependencies from the frontend. Regards -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';On 18 February 2013 08:16, Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> wrote: I have it in the works to replace these areas in gdc (see thread on removing toobj, typinf, and todt) - but it looks like things will be worse before they start improving again on this instance.Won't be better to merge rather smaller increments? For example, merging one commit (from dmd) at a time? That way, the gdc will follow the dmd commit by commit, and not only release by release. I hope this would bring easier merging, as less code changes are required. What do you think?
Feb 20 2013
On 20 February 2013 11:24, Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> wrote:On 20 February 2013 08:05, eles <eles eles.com> wrote:OK, D Frontend is merged. Phobos and Druntime are yet to be updated, so subsequently it doesn't yet build the library yet. TODO: - Add compiler support for new cent/ucent types. - Test CTFE feature for doing reinterpret casts between int <-> float. Should work, but untested. - Phobos / D runtime merge, obviously... - Once above done, blast through re-implementation of toDt, toObjFile routines that removes all dependencies on DMD backend. - Breathe and sigh. Regards -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';On Tuesday, 19 February 2013 at 11:33:59 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:That's mid to long term goal (we currently do the same with gcc development, for instance). But not until have dropped the remainder dmd backend dependencies from the frontend.On 18 February 2013 08:16, Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> wrote: I have it in the works to replace these areas in gdc (see thread on removing toobj, typinf, and todt) - but it looks like things will be worse before they start improving again on this instance.Won't be better to merge rather smaller increments? For example, merging one commit (from dmd) at a time? That way, the gdc will follow the dmd commit by commit, and not only release by release. I hope this would bring easier merging, as less code changes are required. What do you think?
Feb 20 2013
On 20 February 2013 18:27, Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> wrote:On 20 February 2013 11:24, Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> wrote:Phobos/Druntime merged. TODO: - cent/ucent - Test CTFE - re-implementation of toDt, toObjFile. -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';On 20 February 2013 08:05, eles <eles eles.com> wrote:OK, D Frontend is merged. Phobos and Druntime are yet to be updated, so subsequently it doesn't yet build the library yet. TODO: - Add compiler support for new cent/ucent types. - Test CTFE feature for doing reinterpret casts between int <-> float. Should work, but untested. - Phobos / D runtime merge, obviously... - Once above done, blast through re-implementation of toDt, toObjFile routines that removes all dependencies on DMD backend. - Breathe and sigh.On Tuesday, 19 February 2013 at 11:33:59 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:That's mid to long term goal (we currently do the same with gcc development, for instance). But not until have dropped the remainder dmd backend dependencies from the frontend.On 18 February 2013 08:16, Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> wrote: I have it in the works to replace these areas in gdc (see thread on removing toobj, typinf, and todt) - but it looks like things will be worse before they start improving again on this instance.Won't be better to merge rather smaller increments? For example, merging one commit (from dmd) at a time? That way, the gdc will follow the dmd commit by commit, and not only release by release. I hope this would bring easier merging, as less code changes are required. What do you think?
Feb 21 2013