On Tuesday, 23 February 2016 at 20:40:36 UTC, Johan Engelen wrote:
> On Tuesday, 23 February 2016 at 20:11:42 UTC, Kai Nacke wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 23 February 2016 at 16:59:25 UTC, Dan Olson wrote:
>>> Nice and thanks.  I assume best practice for changes intended for both ltsmaster and master, do pull-request to ltsmaster first, then later merge into master?  I am thinking of my latest arm-linux changes.
>>
>> Hi Dan!
>>
>> This is the process we need to follow. All target architecture relevant changes (ARM, AArch64, etc.), LLVM updates and maybe bug fixes (#1224, #1292) should be developed first for ltsmaster.
>
> Isn't the opposite usually done? Develop something for master, and backport to LTS ?
> (perhaps less chance of introducing something bad in LTS?)

We should also not break the master branch.

I view it from the practically side: I develop against ltsmaster and can then merge the changes into master. Otherwise I need to cherry-pick the commit which is always a bit clumsy.

Regards,
Kai

On Wed, 2016-02-24 at 05:25 +0000, rsw0x via digitalmars-d-ldc wrote:
> […]
> The speed of development of LDC is impressive, thank you Kai/LDC
> team.

Here, here.

ldc2 is definitely my D compiler of choice.

-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

On Wed, 2016-02-24 at 07:41 +0000, Kai Nacke via digitalmars-d-ldc wrote:
> 
[…]
> Yes, next version will be 1.0. This was discussed earlier in this
> forum.
> The move to the D based frontend is a major milestone for this
> project.
> Given the current shape of the project and the development
> activity right now, we are really ready for a 1.0 version. :-)

Go to LDC 1.0 with D 2.069 or with D 2.070?

-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

On Wednesday, 24 February 2016 at 08:07:38 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-02-24 at 05:25 +0000, rsw0x via digitalmars-d-ldc wrote:
>> […]
>> The speed of development of LDC is impressive, thank you Kai/LDC
>> team.
>
> Here, here.
>
> ldc2 is definitely my D compiler of choice.

Thanks!

On Wednesday, 24 February 2016 at 08:08:40 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-02-24 at 07:41 +0000, Kai Nacke via digitalmars-d-ldc wrote:
>> 
> […]
>> Yes, next version will be 1.0. This was discussed earlier in this
>> forum.
>> The move to the D based frontend is a major milestone for this
>> project.
>> Given the current shape of the project and the development
>> activity right now, we are really ready for a 1.0 version. :-)
>
> Go to LDC 1.0 with D 2.069 or with D 2.070?

This is not yet decided. The 1.0.0-alpha1 release is based on D 2.069 (as I am currently building the binaries). But there is still some work required, especially for non-Intel platforms. If we manage to fix the last test failures in D 2.070 (only three!) in the meantime then the 1.0 release will be based on 2.070.

Regards,
Kai

On Wednesday, 24 February 2016 at 19:29:52 UTC, Kai Nacke wrote:
>
> This is not yet decided. The 1.0.0-alpha1 release is based on D 2.069 (as I am currently building the binaries). But there is still some work required, especially for non-Intel platforms.

Also, LDC master cannot build itself on Windows, which is a little embarrassing !

On Wednesday, 24 February 2016 at 19:29:52 UTC, Kai Nacke wrote:
> On Wednesday, 24 February 2016 at 08:08:40 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
>> On Wed, 2016-02-24 at 07:41 +0000, Kai Nacke via digitalmars-d-ldc wrote:
>>> 
>> […]
>>> Yes, next version will be 1.0. This was discussed earlier in this
>>> forum.
>>> The move to the D based frontend is a major milestone for this
>>> project.
>>> Given the current shape of the project and the development
>>> activity right now, we are really ready for a 1.0 version. :-)
>>
>> Go to LDC 1.0 with D 2.069 or with D 2.070?
>
> This is not yet decided. The 1.0.0-alpha1 release is based on D 2.069 (as I am currently building the binaries). But there is still some work required, especially for non-Intel platforms. If we manage to fix the last test failures in D 2.070 (only three!)

One test failure was trivial to fix, I think there is now only the druntime/object.d failure left!
(we also shouldn't forget to merge-in the upcoming 2.070.1 release)

On Wednesday, 24 February 2016 at 20:51:04 UTC, Johan Engelen wrote:
>
> One test failure was trivial to fix, I think there is now only the druntime/object.d failure left!

Nope, it's like Kai said: three failures left.

On 2016-02-24 20:29, Kai Nacke wrote:

> This is not yet decided. The 1.0.0-alpha1 release is based on D 2.069
> (as I am currently building the binaries). But there is still some work
> required, especially for non-Intel platforms. If we manage to fix the
> last test failures in D 2.070 (only three!) in the meantime then the 1.0
> release will be based on 2.070.

It would be nice to have the Objective-C support as well.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Tuesday, 23 February 2016 at 05:51:01 UTC, Kai Nacke wrote:
> Because the frontend is now written in D we Need a D Compiler to bootstrap. I moved the previous master to branch ltsmaster.


If I'm right you should:

- Compile 2.069 source with ltsmaster => tmp2.069
- Compile 2.069 source with tmp2.069 => lcd2.069

If not ldc 2.069 itself doesn't take advantage of new fixes/optimizations...
tmp2.069 produces "optimized" binaries but it isn't optimized. Am I right?