"ketmar via Digitalmars-d"  wrote in message news:mailman.702.1410379964.5783.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...

> write D -> C++ translator and add translated versions to repo too. no,
> really! this C++ code need not to be maintenable, so we can use C++
> subset as "assembler language". i.e. use D frontend to make all
> analysis, instantiate templates and so on, then just emit ugly,
> unreadable, but working subset of C++. why C++? to support exceptions,
> which can be hard to do properly with C.
>
> i'm really serious here. and besides solving bootstraping problems we
> will have a nice codegen for new platforms: if platform has C++
> compiler, we can run D code on in.
>
> sure, there will be problems with GC (let's forget about it for the
> first iteration, DMD doesn't do much free()s too) and other things, but
> will solve all transition problems.

The DDMD project is nearly complete, and this is not going to happen as a part of it. 

"Andrej Mitrovic via Digitalmars-d"  wrote in message news:mailman.704.1410382691.5783.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...

> If by current you mean git-head, only git-head versions of DMD are
> compatible with git-head versions of druntime and phobos. Meaning it's
> normal that an e.g. 2.066 compiler will not build a Phobos commit
> after the commit tagged v2.066 (it may work for a while, but things
> usually break quick enough either through things like mangling changes
> or accepts-invalid bug fixes, to name a few).

It is not that difficult to make sure the dmd source compiles with both dmd+druntime master and with the dmd+druntime from the previous release.

ie The host compiler doesn't have to build master druntime and phobos, it just has to use its own druntime to build master dmd.  Phobos is not currently use by ddmd, but it would work mostly the same.

If an accepts-invalid bug gets fixed in master that affects ddmd compilation, then that code will need to be replaced in master - with new code that still compiles with the supported previous release(s). 

"H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d"  wrote in message news:mailman.706.1410383621.5783.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...

> If self-hosting is ever going to take off, we're gonna hafta restrict
> dmd source code to be compilable with at least the previous dmd release.
> Otherwise, we may end up with a compiler that can't be compiled unless
> you've already compiled it first.

Of course.  At least one previous release. 

"Andrej Mitrovic via Digitalmars-d"  wrote in message news:mailman.710.1410385670.5783.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...

> If that's the case then we're going to have to become much better
> organized. That means more frequent releases and more targeted
> releases (surgically picking pulls to be merged rather than merging a
> random set of pulls that may or may not break backwards
> compatibility).

It really doesn't.  We just need to test that the old release can compile the current code. 

"Andrej Mitrovic via Digitalmars-d"  wrote in message news:mailman.707.1410384399.5783.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...

> And the autotester would have to change to verify a previous release
> is buildable.

It will have to verify the current master is buildable with the previous release.

> I don't know, self-hosting is a mysterious concept. But it's kind of
> exciting! :)

:) 

"Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d"  wrote in message news:mailman.720.1410393900.5783.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...

> Is it considered immoral to build DDMD with GDC or LDC? ;-)

No, but it probably won't work for a while, until they catch up to dmd's extern(C++) support. 

On 9/11/14, Daniel Murphy via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> Phobos is not
> currently use by ddmd, but it would work mostly the same.

Ah, yes I forgot about that. I guess that's one good reason not to use
phobos in DDMD (yet).

On Thursday, 11 September 2014 at 00:30:29 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 02:04:52AM +0200, Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On 10/09/14 21:20, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> >- How to make a nice transition for people who follow git HEAD (whose
>> >  setups will inevitably fail once the above PR gets pulled, since it
>> >  will likely be unable to find a working D compiler in order to
>> >  build itself);
>> 
>> Is it considered immoral to build DDMD with GDC or LDC? ;-)
>
> It's certainly a possibility, provided the makefiles are updated to be
> able to work with them. :)

It's crucial for the ARM ports, which DMD itself will most likely
never support.

On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 16:43:32 +1000
Daniel Murphy via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

> The DDMD project is nearly complete, and this is not going to happen as a part of it.
i love when people drops easy and obvious solutions, that's cool. fixing legacy? no, too late. making self-hosting compiler work without problems on any decent system? no, the project is nearly complete.

ah, i know this smell. "stability, legacy, enterprise users, let's design new unusable web-site", all that BS. i came too late -- again. ok, i can at least stick with last non self-hosting version then. good luck telling users that thay has to have D compiler to build D compiler. and good luck persuading GNU/Linux programmers that they need binary blob to compile D compiler. it's deadend -- at least for GNU/Linux, in which i'm interested.

On Thursday, 11 September 2014 at 09:27:11 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 16:43:32 +1000
> Daniel Murphy via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>
>> The DDMD project is nearly complete, and this is not going to happen
>> as a part of it.
> i love when people drops easy and obvious solutions, that's cool.
> fixing legacy? no, too late. making self-hosting compiler work
> without problems on any decent system? no, the project is nearly
> complete.

If it is easy you are welcome to implement it and provide patches.