• Mike Parker (429/429) May 02 The D Language Foundation's January 2026 monthly meeting took

Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:

The D Language Foundation's January 2026 monthly meeting took 
place on Friday the 16th and lasted about 50 minutes.



The following people attended:

* Walter Bright
* Rikki Cattermole
* Jonathan M. Davis
* Mathias Lang
* Mike Parker
* Átila Neves
* Razvan Nitu
* Robert Schadek
* Steven Schveighoffer
* Nicholas Wilson





Rikki said that people had been trying for a long time to find a 
safe way to cast `shared` off of an object. This was kind of 
important, because if you couldn't do it safely, then you were 
basically in ` system` territory, which wasn't a good thing.

He thought there was a simple way to solve it using a new storage 
class, `onstackonly`. Any value marked with it would be 
stack-only and couldn't go into another variable with an equal or 
longer lifetime. It couldn't be put into return values, globals, 
pointers, or anything similar. It could be passed down the stack 
and put into `scope` things. He asked if the storage class made 
sense.

Nicholas asked whether this needed to be another storage class, 
or whether it was already covered by `scope`. Rikki said `scope` 
was very similar, but it didn't communicate the same thing.

Jonathan said that without DIP 1000, `scope` didn't do much. He 
wasn't even sure that what it currently did was memory safe, 
because without DIP 1000 it mostly took the programmer's word for 
it. With DIP 1000, extra checks were added, but without it, 
`scope` was kind of iffy. He also suspected that we'd need to see 
a DIP listing it out in detail before we could really understand 
what Rikki was getting at.

Walter said he didn't understand what it meant to cast `shared` 
off safely and asked Rikki to write up a short description. Rikki 
said he could do that, but he wanted first to determine whether 
this was something worth sending straight into development with a 
DIP.

Mathias said his understanding was that Rikki wanted to be able 
to cast `shared` away in a safe context. Rikki said it was. 
Mathias didn't see how it would be safe then if you passed it 
down the stack. Walter said the only way to do that was by 
putting a mutex on it and then casting away `shared`. Mathias 
agreed, but said that if `shared` was in ` system` territory, 
trying to paint ` safe` over it defeated the type system.

Jonathan said that if there were a mutex associated with a 
variable, and the language understood that association, then in 
theory there might be limited contexts where the compiler could 
implicitly cast `shared` away safely. That, to an extent, was 
what Andrei's proposal about `shared` for synchronized classes 
had been trying to do. It was very limited in what it could do. 
There would still be many cases where you'd have to use ` system` 
casts because the language couldn't understand every strange 
thing someone might want to do. It might be possible on a limited 
basis, but only if we could associate a mutex with specific 
variables.

Steve didn't know why D needed to support casting `shared` away 
in a safe context without something like ` trusted`. At that 
point, the programmer was writing ` system` code anyway. Even if 
the language could understand that a particular mutex was tied to 
one particular shared thing, the model would be extremely limited 
and still wouldn't be immune to problems such as deadlocks. This 
had been a chronic problem with `shared`, which was why the way 
forward was basically to say you couldn't access shared data 
directly. You had to first cast it away through a system function 
and build safe primitives around that using trusted code.

Jonathan said it wasn't like what we were trying to do with DIP 
1000 in the sense that we had what you could currently do in the 
language and determine was memory safe, but in theory we could 
make more stuff memory safe with some extensions. The question 
was whether we could make enough additional stuff memory safe. 
With DIP 1000 there had been a lot of issues where it had been 
over complicated in order to get that extra benefit.

The basic concept of being able to say "here's a set of things we 
can do where shared is removed, and therefore, there's more code 
that can be memory safe without ` trusted`" was great. The 
question was whether any particular solution would be simple 
enough to be usuable while still allowing enough to make it the 
extra complication worthwhile.

Átila asked whether this would really be better than a library 
solution, since he had written one and thought its API was pretty 
good. The code that did the actual casting was ` trusted`, but it 
presented a safe interface. He didn't see why a new language 
feature was necessary. Rikki said that without a borrow checker, 
the library couldn't really ensure that the lock was held as long 
as there was any reference to the protected data. Átila said that 
was probably good enough.

Robert said that from what he had seen, the two solutions that 
had really been adopted for sharing data across threads were 
atomics and message passing. Everything in between was 
half-baked. It was a nice solution in no man's land and nobody 
wanted to go there. It didn't give you enough and was too 
complicated for what it gave you. So either you were very smart 
and used atomics and then fell on your face, or you used message 
passing. Then it was good enough.

Jonathan understood why Rikki didn't want to invest the time to 
figure out or implement a solution if he wasn't sure it would be 
accepted. But any solution like this would require a detailed DIP 
explaining exactly how it would work. If it was too complicated, 
it wouldn't fly. If it didn't allow much more than D could 
already do, that probably wouldn't fly either. Without an actual 
proposal, we could only talk in generalities, and that wasn't 
very useful.

Walter said that one of Rust's features was that it prevented 
data races. He thought that fell out of the borrow checker 
semantics. He said he had implemented a borrow checker for D and 
nobody wanted it. It was only a proof of concept and didn't cover 
every detail, such as lazy functions, but he had seen no point in 
continuing because not a single person had wanted the feature in 
D. If people didn't want a borrow checker, he didn't see a reason 
to go further down the path of trying to solve this by adding 
more language machinery. D should use mutexes or the other usual 
techniques.

Robert said there was an interesting story that had recently come 
up regarding Rust in the Linux kernel. The kernel developers had 
needed to mark some code as unsafe to do something they wanted, 
and then they ran into an issue where they corrupted memory. His 
point was that the cool things they wanted to do, they weren't 
able to do in safe Rust, so they basically slapped ` trusted` or 
` system` on it and let it rip, and it ripped right into memory 
and they had a segfault and stuff.

He understood the desire for compiler-validated, memory-safe 
shared code, but roughly 60 years of computer science research 
had not yielded the perfect solution. He doubted there was one. 
The understandable solutions for the average programmer were 
atomics and message passing.

I said it sounded like the the consensus was against Rikki's 
proposal. Átila agreed. I suggested Rikki's next step if he 
wanted to pursue it would be to put a written proposal together. 
Not necessarily a full DIP, but something in the DIP Ideas forum.

Rikki said it looked more like this would become documentation 
for how the problem _could_ be solved, rather than the direction 
we actually wanted to go. Walter said it was still worth taking a 
shot at the problem. He didn't think Rikki needed a detailed 
proposal right away, just a general proposal about how it might 
possibly work, posted to the DIP Ideas forum, so people could 
react to it.

Átila said we had a library solution for this anyway. Just use 
it. Could we guarantee at the compiler level? No, but that was 
fine and would be good enough.

He thought we should make `preview=noSharedAccess` the default in 
the next edition, which was why he was trying to get the runtime 
to compile with it. We could move forward with that, then you 
were on your own with anything that didn't go through a library 
like the one that associated a mutex with a variable. Or you 
could do what Robert said and pass messages around or use 
atomics. He thought that would cover nearly all the bases. 
Languages like Pony had more ambitious solutions, but they paid 
for that with an incredibly complicated type system.

Walter then reminded everyone we had synchronized classes. Átila 
immediately said he wanted to delete those, too. Walter had been 
about to say that D could remove them in an edition. Átila 
reiterated that he wanted to nuke them. Jonathan generally 
agreed, but he expected some people would complain, including 
Funkwerk.

He also pointed out that `preview=noSharedAccess` still had 
issues that needed to be fixed before it could be enabled. One 
problem was that we had no way to distinguish between a reference 
to a shared object and whether the reference was also shared, 
especially with classes. That could become a problem with member 
functions. He wasn't sure how we could tackle that. As a general 
thing outside of member functions, he thought it required another 
helper struct to fix it, just like `Rebindable`. We needed to get 
those details sorted before we enabled it.

Átila said this was another consequence of classes being 
references by default. If the pointer were explicit, then 
`shared` could be applied to the pointer or to the type as 
needed. Jonathan agreed that the missing syntax was the problem. 
He said Amaury had suggested in the past that classes should have 
been written as pointers everywhere. They would still be 
reference types, but the pointer would be explicit. Átila agreed.

Nicholas asked whether the explicit `this` parameter that had 
come up in discussions about DIP 1000 and attributes could be a 
solution to this. Jonathan said that could potentially help. 
Steve said explicit `this` only changed syntax, not semantics. 
Jonathan agreed that an explicit `this` by itself wouldn't be 
enough, but coupled with explicit pointer syntax for classes, it 
could work.

I asked if Rikki was good with the outcome, and then we moved on.

(__UPDATE__: Rikki subsequently posted [a writeup in the DIP 
Ideas 
forum](https://forum.dlang.org/post/pwhgwshfxfunwtflhmfz forum.dlang.org).)



Rikki shared [a link to an example of some error message 
output](https://gist.github.com/rikkimax/f39721fe9f9377efe6896b30ad39c860?permalink_comment_id=5916804#gistcomment-5916804).

He said that “diagnostic reporting” was his name for a style of 
compiler error message for compilers that he thought originated 
with Rust. It was nice in that it went line by line using ASCII 
graphics to show exactly where error messages applied in the 
source code. The output was quite dense, but it was nice to see 
and often used for static analysis.

He said he would need this for the fast DFA engine once he added 
tracing support. He'd written some toy code that converted 
existing error messages and found that the they were pretty bad 
in this style. He proposed we add a new message style for this 
kind of output.  iskabon10, who had worked on error messages as 
part of SAOC, had offered to do it.

Robert believed the next GCC release, and therefore the next GDC 
release, would have an error reporting style very close to this. 
He gave the proposal two thumbs up. He'd been pedantic in the 
past for people to have a look at Elm's error messages, which he 
found even better. If some of that influence could be sprinkled 
in, he welcomed it. Good error messages mattered because error 
messages were basically the user interface for developers. We 
should make them awesome.

Steve seconded Robert. He'd spent about a year working on the new 
GC using SDC, and the error messages were atrocious, basically 
dumps of LLVM internal representation. Any time we could make 
error messages better, we should.

Jonathan expected there would be some bikeshedding over exactly 
how the output looked, but he didn't think anyone would argue 
against making error messages clearer. The tracing information 
Rikki was talking about would be helpful. For example, with 
`scope` in DIP 1000, one of the big problems had been presenting 
error messages without that kind of tracing information. If DMD 
could provide explicit tracing info for attribute inference or 
whatnot, he didn't think anyone would complain about getting 
additional information. In the worst case, it would be too 
verbose. We'd need an extra flag to make it spit out more stuff, 
but he thought it was a clear win.

Nicholas was all for it. Adding a new error style was the right 
way to do it, because that would avoid mucking up the whole test 
suite. Eventually, if the new style was well liked, we could 
merge it into the default style kind of like we did with context 
output and keep the test suite using the simpler style.

I asked whether Rikki had gotten what he needed. He said there 
was one more thing. Currently, the error message code had about 
four modules sitting in the DMD directory. He thought it was time 
to refactor that into a package, maybe something like 
`dmd.messages`, especially if we were going to add modules. That 
needed Walter's approval.

Walter said he had split `ErrorSink` into a separate module in 
order to stop the intricate interdependencies among the various 
pieces of the error message stuff. He didn't think putting things 
into a package would improve anything. What would improve things, 
and what he had already done in places, was to stop calling 
`error` directly and instead call through `ErrorSink`. Getting 
the whole compiler transitioned to that would make it much more 
practical to build an LSP server, because it would eliminate the 
global-variable problem. To him, that was more useful than 
putting modules into packages.

He asked which modules Rikki wanted to put into a package. Rikki 
said he didn't remember all of them offhand. Nicholas thought one 
of them might be related to a previous student project involving 
a generic interchange format similar to LSP. I asked if that was 
SARIF. Nicholas said he didn't know, only that it was an acronym.

Rikki said there were four related modules currently sitting in 
the DMD directory, and at least one or two more would be added 
for the new diagnostic style. Some things that were currently 
private would also need to be split into another module for 
utility code related to line coloring and stuff. In his view, it 
really needed to be in a package, and it would be better if that 
were done first. Walter didn't think it needed to be done first, 
since packaging was simple and could always be added later. He 
wasn't sure what the gain was.

Rikki asked Nicholas whether he could handle that aspect. 
Nicholas said he'd be happy to.



Razvan reminded everyone that GSoC's application period for 
mentoring organizations would open at the end of January. As 
usual, we needed mentors. Based on past experience, the people in 
the meeting were the most likely mentors because people from the 
wider community usually didn't step up. He urged us to think 
about whether we had work that could benefit from student help 
and could reasonably be done in eight to twelve weeks.

He would take care of the application, but we needed project 
ideas with mentors attached. In 2025, we'd submitted four 
projects and received only two slots. Typical organizations of 
our size had more like six to fifteen projects. The more projects 
we submitted and the more engaged mentors we could show, the 
better our chances of being accepted. If we applied again with 
only two, three, or four projects, he feared our chances would be 
slim.

He also reminded everyone that a person couldn't be the principal 
mentor for more than one project. Someone could be a secondary 
mentor on two or three projects while serving as principal mentor 
on one. But if we wanted to increase our chances, people needed 
to step up. He had made a forum post, but the pattern was that 
people often had plenty of project ideas and were much less 
willing to mentor them. The real need was for mentors.

(__UPDATE__: We very recently recieved word on our application 
status. I expect an announcement from Razvan is forthcoming. I 
don't want to steal his thunder.)



Steve said some people had complained recently that when you went 
to the old Bugzilla page, it redirected to GitHub, but not to the 
specific issue that had been opened. Instead, it redirected to 
the GitHub DMD issue list. He thought this was really bad and 
asked whether there was a way to restore Bugzilla. A lot of bugs 
had already been closed by the time of the migration and weren't 
moved to GitHub. Without the old instance, all that history was 
lost.

I said he should probably talk to Vladimir Panteleev, since he 
was likely the person who had done the redirect. Steve said 
Bugzilla had been chronically going down. I said that then that 
would instead be Brad Roberts. I wasn't sure whether Vladimir had 
ever migrated everything from Brad. There'd been some talk about 
doing that. Vladimir was definitely the person to talk to about 
the status.

Walter said that, worst case, all Bugzilla postings had also been 
sent to him by email, so he had an email archive of every 
Bugzilla message. Steve noted that they were also on the 
newsgroup. I thought we had an archive of the database anyway.

Jonathan said the related issue was link preservation. The old 
links were floating around online in various posts, so ideally 
those links should still work. If the old site couldn't be 
restored, then it couldn't be restored, but ideally it would come 
back in a way that allowed those links to resolve.

Walter said that email wasn't the greatest way to access the 
data, but we did have it, and a program could always reconstruct 
a website from it. He saw that Rikki was shaking his head and 
asked why. Rikki said he had tried to use the newsgroup interface 
to look at issues for a specific case and couldn't find all the 
messages. He thought some might be missing because of age. Walter 
said he had all the messages unless his mail system had failed 
and caused him to miss a few. He'd been collecting them since Day 
One, though he hadn't done anything with them.

Steve would be surprised if the Bugzilla instance data didn't 
still exist somewhere. He assumed Brad still had it and just 
hadn't wanted to keep the instance running. It would be crazy if 
all that data had been thrown away. Walter agreed completely and 
said it needed to be online somewhere.

I was sure the data was still there and that somebody had simply 
redirected the site. The decision had been to put the Bugzilla 
instance into read-only mode and leave the links active.

I looked at the DNS. `issues.dlang.org` was a CNAME that pointed 
to `issues-d.puremagic.com`, which was Brad's domain, but was 
redirecting to GitHub. Going to the `issues-d.puremagic.com` 
directly ended up at the D auto-tester on 
`autotester.puremagic.com`. Mathias said that this was likely a 
different virtual host or server configuration issue. The 
redirect was probably coming from the server, not from DNS, 
because DNS couldn't redirect to a subpath of an HTTP URL. I said 
that meant Brad was the person we needed to talk to.

Walter said that, at the very least, perhaps he could download 
the Bugzilla database and we could set it up on another server. I 
thought Vladimir might already have it. I would email him first 
and ask. If he didn't know what was going on, then Walter or I 
could reach out to Brad. I told Steve the issue was off his hands 
now.

Walter said the best outcome would be to get the database, put it 
on one of D's own servers with the other infrastructure, and just 
leave it there.

(__UPDATE__: After some email back and forth, we got everything 
sorted. https://issues.dlang.org/ now points to a Bugzilla 
archive on one of our servers, courtesy of Vladimir Panteleev.)



Walter said a recent newsgroup discussion about the release 
cadence had made him realize how critical it was to get an 
AArch64 version of DMD. He had taken a short break from working 
on the code generator to work on other parts of D, but he was now 
back to trying to get the AArch64 code generator working.

At the moment, he was taking every test case in the test suite 
and running it through the compiler to see whether the compiler 
crashed while trying to compile it. It was difficult to run the 
resulting programs because there wasn't yet a working AArch64 
DRuntime, but he could at least try compiling them. Once every 
test case compiled without crashing, the next step would be to 
try building the compiler itself as an ARM executable. He was 
making progress, though he didn't know how long it would take.

He also noted that he had put an 80-bit floating-point emulator 
on the Summer of Code project list. He'd found that if he gave 
ChatGPT a prompt, it would generate an 80-bit floating-point 
emulator. That might make the project relatively simple, but it 
raised a question: if D incorporated ChatGPT-generated code into 
the codebase, what would the copyright status be?

Jonathan said one concern he had, though he expected many people 
would disagree, was that if GPL code was being fed into LLMs, 
then arguably anything produced from those models was derived 
from GPL code and should also be GPL. He didn't know what the 
legal outcome would be because it hadn't really been tested. In 
that sense, he thought it was fairly dangerous to use 
LLM-generated code unless there was a compelling reason.

Walter said he knew how to implement floating-point code and had 
done it before. It was just convenient to have ChatGPT do it for 
this kind of constrained problem, where the requirements were 
completely specified.

Robert disagreed with Jonathan. The genie was out of the bottle. 
 From his point of view, whether outputs from LLMs inherited 
copyright constraints from their inputs was the trillion-dollar 
question, and if a court eventually ruled that they did, the 
economy would tank.

Walter said he would at least put a note on any generated code 
saying it was ChatGPT-generated and we wouldn't try to claim 
copyright on it ourselves.

Nicholas said D already had LLM-denoted sections from Vladimir, 
who had used Claude rather than ChatGPT in some recent pull 
requests. Rikki said he had used Gemini to generate code in DMD, 
specifically some math for the fast DFA engine's point analysis. 
It was simple stuff he couldn't be bothered to figure out 
manually, and he had personally verified it. But he drew a 
distinction between small utility code and something like an 
80-bit floating-point emulator. Small verified code was one 
thing. A whole module was another.

Walter said the emulator didn't need to be complete. It only 
needed to implement add, subtract, multiply, divide, compare, and 
conversions. It didn't need to emulate every x87 function.

Steve said that ethically, with LLM-generated code, the more 
obscure the problem, the more likely the model had seen only a 
few examples of that problem being solved, and therefore the more 
likely it was to produce something close to a copy-paste 
solution. Asking it to make a checklist program was probably 
fine. Asking it to make an 80-bit floating-point emulator might 
be different, because there might be very few examples to draw 
from.

Robert told Walter that talk was cheap. He suggested Walter put 
$20 into Claude tokens, give it the last x87 floating-point test 
suite, tell it to implement the emulator and not change the 
tests, then make coffee and see what happened. The result might 
be surprisingly good, half bad, or at least a useful starting 
point. It would be a fun thing to try. Walter said he did have an 
excellent test suite for 32-bit and 64-bit floating-point code 
that had served him well when he implemented floating-point code 
by hand in the 8088 days. Robert said that made the experiment 
even better. For fun, Walter could spend another $20 having one 
model generate a test suite and another implement the emulator.

Rikki said he'd been using Google's Antigravity editor with D. It 
had successfully fixed bugs in the fast DFA engine. For about $15 
a month, the paid plan gave higher limits, extra code features, 
and Gemini thinking. He hadn't yet run into any limits.



Our next meeting was a January 23rd planning session focused on 
editions. We held our next monthly meeting on February 13th.

If you have anything you'd like to bring to us in a monthly 
meeting, please let me know.