D.gnu - version?
- Ellery Newcomer (11/11) Feb 20 2017 Quick dumb question:
- rikki cattermole (5/14) Feb 20 2017 For the lazy:
- Iain Buclaw via D.gnu (13/22) Feb 20 2017 It's hard to keep track of all distributions and what versions they
- John Colvin (4/9) Feb 21 2017 Is there a possibility that gdc will continue to diverge? I don't
- Iain Buclaw via D.gnu (9/18) Feb 21 2017 Initially, the plan is to be aligned with stable branch in terms of
Quick dumb question: I just installed gdc on ubuntu from apt. Which version of the dmd front end does it use? gdc --version gives me gdc (Ubuntu 4.8.5-2ubuntu1~14.04.1) 4.8.5 Copyright (C) 2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Feb 20 2017
rikki cattermole <rikki cattermole.co.nz> On 21/02/2017 4:36 AM, Ellery Newcomer wrote:Quick dumb question: I just installed gdc on ubuntu from apt. Which version of the dmd front end does it use? gdc --version gives me gdc (Ubuntu 4.8.5-2ubuntu1~14.04.1) 4.8.5 Copyright (C) 2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.For the lazy: pragma(msg, __VERSION__); void main() {} That'll tell you.
Feb 20 2017
On 20 February 2017 at 16:36, Ellery Newcomer via D.gnu <d.gnu puremagic.com> wrote:Quick dumb question: I just installed gdc on ubuntu from apt. Which version of the dmd front end does it use? gdc --version gives me gdc (Ubuntu 4.8.5-2ubuntu1~14.04.1) 4.8.5 Copyright (C) 2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.It's hard to keep track of all distributions and what versions they use, but I think in Ubuntu it is approximately: gdc-4.8.x: 2.064 gdc-4.9.x: 2.065 gdc-5.x: 2.066 gdc-6.x: 2.068 The next gcc release ought to be an interesting experiment for the community, as although the version is still set to 2068, gdc has now diverged so far from the last C++ sources that it is anything but. I'll probably bump it to whatever version of phobos it can compile. :-)
Feb 20 2017
On Monday, 20 February 2017 at 17:00:48 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:The next gcc release ought to be an interesting experiment for the community, as although the version is still set to 2068, gdc has now diverged so far from the last C++ sources that it is anything but. I'll probably bump it to whatever version of phobos it can compile. :-)Is there a possibility that gdc will continue to diverge? I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing, if upstream features can be implemented in a timely manner (that's a big "if" though).
Feb 21 2017
On 21 February 2017 at 10:48, John Colvin via D.gnu <d.gnu puremagic.com> wrote:On Monday, 20 February 2017 at 17:00:48 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:Initially, the plan is to be aligned with stable branch in terms of sharing common C++ headers, then aligning any changes that alter the code generator. The idea being that this will allow transition between C++ and D implementations to be seamless (no backend changes required). We'll keep it in this state until a time when we are ready to switch. My plan is that when the switch happens, we'll just continue to be in sync with stable, rather than a given release.The next gcc release ought to be an interesting experiment for the community, as although the version is still set to 2068, gdc has now diverged so far from the last C++ sources that it is anything but. I'll probably bump it to whatever version of phobos it can compile. :-)Is there a possibility that gdc will continue to diverge? I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing, if upstream features can be implemented in a timely manner (that's a big "if" though).
Feb 21 2017