• bioinfornatics (5/5) Jan 22 2011 They are something wrong with druntime management!!!
• Robert Clipsham (24/29) Jan 22 2011 I've been talking to you on IRC about this, but I'll reiterate it here
• Daniel Gibson (8/37) Jan 22 2011 I think you're right and of course this makes sense.
• Brad Roberts (16/47) Jan 22 2011 Personally, I'd like to see one common runtime, but to achieve that requ...
• Iain Buclaw (10/57) Jan 23 2011 updated
• Brad Roberts (4/63) Jan 23 2011 Lists: http://lists.puremagic.com
• Iain Buclaw (18/81) Jan 23 2011 The
• Jacob Carlborg (6/63) Jan 23 2011 For some reason it's not listed on the Digitalmars site with the rest of...
• Sean Kelly (2/4) Jan 23 2011 Should it? Even if the devlopers of GDC and LDC2 were interested (and n...

bioinfornatics <bioinfornatics fedoraproject.org> writes:

They are something wrong with druntime management!!!
Why druntime do not support gdc or ldc2?
Its is very crap thing i hope druntime will add soon gdc support. We can send
ldc and gdc patch.
Thanks for all

best regards

Robert Clipsham <robert octarineparrot.com> writes:

On 22/01/11 23:58, bioinfornatics wrote:
 They are something wrong with druntime management!!!
 Why druntime do not support gdc or ldc2?
 Its is very crap thing i hope druntime will add soon gdc support. We can send
ldc and gdc patch.
 Thanks for all

 best regards

I've been talking to you on IRC about this, but I'll reiterate it here 
for everyone elses benefit. Having support for each compiler in druntime 
is a bad idea. This is what druntime did initially when it was forked 
from tango. The trouble was that as the compiler got updated, the 
runtime needed to be updated too, and the compiler and runtime became 
out of sync very easily, and getting everything up to date again was a pain.

The solution to this is to have each compiler maintain its own druntime 
compiler-specifics, and have the non-compiler-specific code in a main 
druntime repository - this way all that is needed is to copy/paste the 
compiler specific code into druntime. This works, as when the compiler 
is updated, so is the compiler-specific portion of druntime and nothing 
gets out of sync.

Of course, a lot of druntime isn't compiler specific, for these parts 
patches should probably be applied. I'm not entirely sure where gdc and 
ldc are with respect to this kind of patch, I know they both have 
complete druntime implementations, but I'm sure if this kind of patch 
was made (preferably in smaller, individual patches for each feature/bug 
etc) it would be applied.

Of course, this is just the situation as I see it, and from memory, the 
druntime folk will probably chime in and give the full story.

-- 
Robert
http://octarineparrot.com/

Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> writes:

Am 23.01.2011 01:32, schrieb Robert Clipsham:
 On 22/01/11 23:58, bioinfornatics wrote:
 They are something wrong with druntime management!!!
 Why druntime do not support gdc or ldc2?
 Its is very crap thing i hope druntime will add soon gdc support. We
 can send ldc and gdc patch.
 Thanks for all

 best regards

 I've been talking to you on IRC about this, but I'll reiterate it here
 for everyone elses benefit. Having support for each compiler in druntime
 is a bad idea. This is what druntime did initially when it was forked
 from tango. The trouble was that as the compiler got updated, the
 runtime needed to be updated too, and the compiler and runtime became
 out of sync very easily, and getting everything up to date again was a
 pain.

 The solution to this is to have each compiler maintain its own druntime
 compiler-specifics, and have the non-compiler-specific code in a main
 druntime repository - this way all that is needed is to copy/paste the
 compiler specific code into druntime. This works, as when the compiler
 is updated, so is the compiler-specific portion of druntime and nothing
 gets out of sync.

 Of course, a lot of druntime isn't compiler specific, for these parts
 patches should probably be applied. I'm not entirely sure where gdc and
 ldc are with respect to this kind of patch, I know they both have
 complete druntime implementations, but I'm sure if this kind of patch
 was made (preferably in smaller, individual patches for each feature/bug
 etc) it would be applied.

 Of course, this is just the situation as I see it, and from memory, the
 druntime folk will probably chime in and give the full story.

I think you're right and of course this makes sense.
I think we had this discussion before, but I can't find the thread.

A further note: As far as I know D's (dmd, phobos, druntime) development 
will soon move to git - maintaining compiler specific versions of 
druntime will probably be a lot easier then.

Cheers,
- Daniel

Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> writes:

On 1/22/2011 4:32 PM, Robert Clipsham wrote:
 On 22/01/11 23:58, bioinfornatics wrote:
 They are something wrong with druntime management!!!
 Why druntime do not support gdc or ldc2?
 Its is very crap thing i hope druntime will add soon gdc support. We can send
 ldc and gdc patch.
 Thanks for all

 best regards

 
 I've been talking to you on IRC about this, but I'll reiterate it here for
 everyone elses benefit. Having support for each compiler in druntime is a bad
 idea. This is what druntime did initially when it was forked from tango. The
 trouble was that as the compiler got updated, the runtime needed to be updated
 too, and the compiler and runtime became out of sync very easily, and getting
 everything up to date again was a pain.
 
 The solution to this is to have each compiler maintain its own druntime
 compiler-specifics, and have the non-compiler-specific code in a main druntime
 repository - this way all that is needed is to copy/paste the compiler specific
 code into druntime. This works, as when the compiler is updated, so is the
 compiler-specific portion of druntime and nothing gets out of sync.
 
 Of course, a lot of druntime isn't compiler specific, for these parts patches
 should probably be applied. I'm not entirely sure where gdc and ldc are with
 respect to this kind of patch, I know they both have complete druntime
 implementations, but I'm sure if this kind of patch was made (preferably in
 smaller, individual patches for each feature/bug etc) it would be applied.
 
 Of course, this is just the situation as I see it, and from memory, the
druntime
 folk will probably chime in and give the full story.
 

Personally, I'd like to see one common runtime, but to achieve that requires
that the compiler/runtime interface be essentially the same between the
compilers.  That's an achievable goal, but it has to actually be an agreed upon
goal.  Today, both gdc and ldc's interface with the runtime don't match dmd's.

So, where do they differ today?  Why?  Can they evolve to a common interface?

I'll happily apply patches from anyone providing them that work to achieve that
goal.  Please use bugzilla to submit them.

One implied part of this goal is that dmd is, while an important stake holder,
needs to play nice too.  Changes need to go through a discussion round before
being made.. no unilateral changes.

Also, this discussion should probably drift over to the d-runtime puremagic.com
mailing list.. at least the parts that are directly related to accomplishing the
changes.

My 2 cents,
Brad

Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> writes:

== Quote from Brad Roberts (braddr puremagic.com)'s article
 On 1/22/2011 4:32 PM, Robert Clipsham wrote:
 On 22/01/11 23:58, bioinfornatics wrote:
 They are something wrong with druntime management!!!
 Why druntime do not support gdc or ldc2?
 Its is very crap thing i hope druntime will add soon gdc support. We can



send
 ldc and gdc patch.
 Thanks for all

 best regards

 I've been talking to you on IRC about this, but I'll reiterate it here for
 everyone elses benefit. Having support for each compiler in druntime is a bad
 idea. This is what druntime did initially when it was forked from tango. The
 trouble was that as the compiler got updated, the runtime needed to be


updated
 too, and the compiler and runtime became out of sync very easily, and getting
 everything up to date again was a pain.

 The solution to this is to have each compiler maintain its own druntime
 compiler-specifics, and have the non-compiler-specific code in a main


druntime
 repository - this way all that is needed is to copy/paste the compiler


specific
 code into druntime. This works, as when the compiler is updated, so is the
 compiler-specific portion of druntime and nothing gets out of sync.

 Of course, a lot of druntime isn't compiler specific, for these parts patches
 should probably be applied. I'm not entirely sure where gdc and ldc are with
 respect to this kind of patch, I know they both have complete druntime
 implementations, but I'm sure if this kind of patch was made (preferably in
 smaller, individual patches for each feature/bug etc) it would be applied.

 Of course, this is just the situation as I see it, and from memory, the


druntime
 folk will probably chime in and give the full story.

 Personally, I'd like to see one common runtime, but to achieve that requires
 that the compiler/runtime interface be essentially the same between the
 compilers.  That's an achievable goal, but it has to actually be an agreed upon
 goal.  Today, both gdc and ldc's interface with the runtime don't match dmd's.
 So, where do they differ today?  Why?  Can they evolve to a common interface?
 I'll happily apply patches from anyone providing them that work to achieve that
 goal.  Please use bugzilla to submit them.
 One implied part of this goal is that dmd is, while an important stake holder,
 needs to play nice too.  Changes need to go through a discussion round before
 being made.. no unilateral changes.
 Also, this discussion should probably drift over to the d-runtime puremagic.com
 mailing list.. at least the parts that are directly related to accomplishing

the
 changes.
 My 2 cents,
 Brad

I'm not sure where to find / subscribe to the mailing list, so I posted here:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5478

Regards.

Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> writes:

On 1/23/2011 9:56 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
 == Quote from Brad Roberts (braddr puremagic.com)'s article
 On 1/22/2011 4:32 PM, Robert Clipsham wrote:
 On 22/01/11 23:58, bioinfornatics wrote:
 They are something wrong with druntime management!!!
 Why druntime do not support gdc or ldc2?
 Its is very crap thing i hope druntime will add soon gdc support. We can



 send
 ldc and gdc patch.
 Thanks for all

 best regards

 I've been talking to you on IRC about this, but I'll reiterate it here for
 everyone elses benefit. Having support for each compiler in druntime is a bad
 idea. This is what druntime did initially when it was forked from tango. The
 trouble was that as the compiler got updated, the runtime needed to be


 updated
 too, and the compiler and runtime became out of sync very easily, and getting
 everything up to date again was a pain.

 The solution to this is to have each compiler maintain its own druntime
 compiler-specifics, and have the non-compiler-specific code in a main


 druntime
 repository - this way all that is needed is to copy/paste the compiler


 specific
 code into druntime. This works, as when the compiler is updated, so is the
 compiler-specific portion of druntime and nothing gets out of sync.

 Of course, a lot of druntime isn't compiler specific, for these parts patches
 should probably be applied. I'm not entirely sure where gdc and ldc are with
 respect to this kind of patch, I know they both have complete druntime
 implementations, but I'm sure if this kind of patch was made (preferably in
 smaller, individual patches for each feature/bug etc) it would be applied.

 Of course, this is just the situation as I see it, and from memory, the


 druntime
 folk will probably chime in and give the full story.

 Personally, I'd like to see one common runtime, but to achieve that requires
 that the compiler/runtime interface be essentially the same between the
 compilers.  That's an achievable goal, but it has to actually be an agreed upon
 goal.  Today, both gdc and ldc's interface with the runtime don't match dmd's.
 So, where do they differ today?  Why?  Can they evolve to a common interface?
 I'll happily apply patches from anyone providing them that work to achieve that
 goal.  Please use bugzilla to submit them.
 One implied part of this goal is that dmd is, while an important stake holder,
 needs to play nice too.  Changes need to go through a discussion round before
 being made.. no unilateral changes.
 Also, this discussion should probably drift over to the d-runtime puremagic.com
 mailing list.. at least the parts that are directly related to accomplishing

 the
 changes.
 My 2 cents,
 Brad

 
 I'm not sure where to find / subscribe to the mailing list, so I posted here:
 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5478
 
 Regards.

Lists: http://lists.puremagic.com

I like the summary of problems, I dislike that it's more than one report per
bug.  It makes dealing with them a royal pain.  One issue per bug please.

Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> writes:

== Quote from Brad Roberts (braddr puremagic.com)'s article
 On 1/23/2011 9:56 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
 == Quote from Brad Roberts (braddr puremagic.com)'s article
 On 1/22/2011 4:32 PM, Robert Clipsham wrote:
 On 22/01/11 23:58, bioinfornatics wrote:
 They are something wrong with druntime management!!!
 Why druntime do not support gdc or ldc2?
 Its is very crap thing i hope druntime will add soon gdc support. We can



 send
 ldc and gdc patch.
 Thanks for all

 best regards

 I've been talking to you on IRC about this, but I'll reiterate it here for
 everyone elses benefit. Having support for each compiler in druntime is a




bad
 idea. This is what druntime did initially when it was forked from tango.




The
 trouble was that as the compiler got updated, the runtime needed to be


 updated
 too, and the compiler and runtime became out of sync very easily, and




getting
 everything up to date again was a pain.

 The solution to this is to have each compiler maintain its own druntime
 compiler-specifics, and have the non-compiler-specific code in a main


 druntime
 repository - this way all that is needed is to copy/paste the compiler


 specific
 code into druntime. This works, as when the compiler is updated, so is the
 compiler-specific portion of druntime and nothing gets out of sync.

 Of course, a lot of druntime isn't compiler specific, for these parts




patches
 should probably be applied. I'm not entirely sure where gdc and ldc are




with
 respect to this kind of patch, I know they both have complete druntime
 implementations, but I'm sure if this kind of patch was made (preferably in
 smaller, individual patches for each feature/bug etc) it would be applied.

 Of course, this is just the situation as I see it, and from memory, the


 druntime
 folk will probably chime in and give the full story.

 Personally, I'd like to see one common runtime, but to achieve that requires
 that the compiler/runtime interface be essentially the same between the
 compilers.  That's an achievable goal, but it has to actually be an agreed



upon
 goal.  Today, both gdc and ldc's interface with the runtime don't match



dmd's.
 So, where do they differ today?  Why?  Can they evolve to a common



interface?
 I'll happily apply patches from anyone providing them that work to achieve



that
 goal.  Please use bugzilla to submit them.
 One implied part of this goal is that dmd is, while an important stake



holder,
 needs to play nice too.  Changes need to go through a discussion round



before
 being made.. no unilateral changes.
 Also, this discussion should probably drift over to the d-



runtime puremagic.com
 mailing list.. at least the parts that are directly related to accomplishing

 the
 changes.
 My 2 cents,
 Brad

 I'm not sure where to find / subscribe to the mailing list, so I posted here:
 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5478

 Regards.

 Lists: http://lists.puremagic.com

OK, thanks. I'll get signed up there.

 I like the summary of problems, I dislike that it's more than one report per
 bug.  It makes dealing with them a royal pain.  One issue per bug please.

It's a follow-on from the report Thomas made back in 2007, as DMD's library
calls
have changed since. GDC haven't changed at all with the exception of one or two
additions to the list for D2.

Regards

Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:

On 2011-01-23 18:56, Iain Buclaw wrote:
 == Quote from Brad Roberts (braddr puremagic.com)'s article
 On 1/22/2011 4:32 PM, Robert Clipsham wrote:
 On 22/01/11 23:58, bioinfornatics wrote:
 They are something wrong with druntime management!!!
 Why druntime do not support gdc or ldc2?
 Its is very crap thing i hope druntime will add soon gdc support. We can



 send
 ldc and gdc patch.
 Thanks for all

 best regards

 I've been talking to you on IRC about this, but I'll reiterate it here for
 everyone elses benefit. Having support for each compiler in druntime is a bad
 idea. This is what druntime did initially when it was forked from tango. The
 trouble was that as the compiler got updated, the runtime needed to be


 updated
 too, and the compiler and runtime became out of sync very easily, and getting
 everything up to date again was a pain.

 The solution to this is to have each compiler maintain its own druntime
 compiler-specifics, and have the non-compiler-specific code in a main


 druntime
 repository - this way all that is needed is to copy/paste the compiler


 specific
 code into druntime. This works, as when the compiler is updated, so is the
 compiler-specific portion of druntime and nothing gets out of sync.

 Of course, a lot of druntime isn't compiler specific, for these parts patches
 should probably be applied. I'm not entirely sure where gdc and ldc are with
 respect to this kind of patch, I know they both have complete druntime
 implementations, but I'm sure if this kind of patch was made (preferably in
 smaller, individual patches for each feature/bug etc) it would be applied.

 Of course, this is just the situation as I see it, and from memory, the


 druntime
 folk will probably chime in and give the full story.

 Personally, I'd like to see one common runtime, but to achieve that requires
 that the compiler/runtime interface be essentially the same between the
 compilers.  That's an achievable goal, but it has to actually be an agreed upon
 goal.  Today, both gdc and ldc's interface with the runtime don't match dmd's.
 So, where do they differ today?  Why?  Can they evolve to a common interface?
 I'll happily apply patches from anyone providing them that work to achieve that
 goal.  Please use bugzilla to submit them.
 One implied part of this goal is that dmd is, while an important stake holder,
 needs to play nice too.  Changes need to go through a discussion round before
 being made.. no unilateral changes.
 Also, this discussion should probably drift over to the d-runtime puremagic.com
 mailing list.. at least the parts that are directly related to accomplishing

 the
 changes.
 My 2 cents,
 Brad

 I'm not sure where to find / subscribe to the mailing list, so I posted here:
 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5478

 Regards.

For some reason it's not listed on the Digitalmars site with the rest of 
the mailing lists but here's the address: 
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/d-runtime

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:

bioinfornatics Wrote:

 They are something wrong with druntime management!!!
 Why druntime do not support gdc or ldc2?

Should it?  Even if the devlopers of GDC and LDC2 were interested (and neither
have contacted me indicating this), I'm not sure it's an optimal workflow to
have all compiler runtimes hosted out of the same repository.  I did this for
Tango by necessity and it was a major pain.