On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d-announce < digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I took a break from work on string operations and focused instead of
> improving the robustness of the engine.
> I.E. for it not to halt the compiler on unsupported expressions.
>
> right now,
> I can compile druntime without failures.
> Phobos should be working by the end of next week.
>
> Have a nice Sunday,
>
> Stefan
>
> PS. String foreach regressed.
> And Struct-handling regressed.
> Due to a change of memory-layout.
>
> I will fix this as soon as the engine does no longer abort.
>
>
Nice! thanks! Will be nice to be able to test newCTFE with our "normal" code every now and then.

Just a small update today.
if(__ctfe) and if(!__ctfe)
now get special treatment.
Also working on getting compiletime-parsers to run.

On 17 Aug 2016 18:50, "Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d-announce" < digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
>
> Just a small update today.
> if(__ctfe) and if(!__ctfe)
> now get special treatment.
> Also working on getting compiletime-parsers to run.
>

Nice tease with the "compile time parsers to run" aside.

We're salivating here. What exactly did you mean by that?

Which compile time parser are you using for testing?

PS: thanks for the updates!

On Wednesday, 17 August 2016 at 18:24:37 UTC, Rory McGuire wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2016 18:50, "Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d-announce" < digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
>>
>> Just a small update today.
>> if(__ctfe) and if(!__ctfe)
>> now get special treatment.
>> Also working on getting compiletime-parsers to run.
>>
>
> Nice tease with the "compile time parsers to run" aside.
>
> We're salivating here. What exactly did you mean by that?
>
> Which compile time parser are you using for testing?
>
> PS: thanks for the updates!

I am using ctfe-bf for a start and others of my own design.
Of course pegged is also on the menu.

Hi Guys,
First of all,
parsers will not make it before September.
I am sorry about that.

Currently I am fixing issues with the design, that for example prevent slices of slices to work.

Also I am writing analysis and debugging code to (such as generating a call-graph and primitive DFA) that will hopefully make function-calls work reliably.
The DMD-AST does not make it easy to track things like variables originating from a parent-scope.


I feel that this can have a positive impact on the whole of dmd, since that will allow better frontend-optimisations.

I am happy for all comments or suggestions.

Cheers,
Stefan

On Monday, 29 August 2016 at 00:24:01 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
> I feel that this can have a positive impact on the whole of dmd, since that will allow better frontend-optimisations.
>
> I am happy for all comments or suggestions.

The work you are doing is just awesome!
Many thanks.

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Dominikus Dittes Scherkl via Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:

> On Monday, 29 August 2016 at 00:24:01 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
>
>> I feel that this can have a positive impact on the whole of dmd, since that will allow better frontend-optimisations.
>>
>> I am happy for all comments or suggestions.
>>
>
> The work you are doing is just awesome!
> Many thanks.
>

+1 your work is key for our success as a community.

R

On Monday, 29 August 2016 at 08:05:10 UTC, Rory McGuire wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Dominikus Dittes Scherkl via
>>
>> The work you are doing is just awesome!
>> Many thanks.
>>
>
> +1 your work is key for our success as a community.
>
> R

Thanks guys.

I just came up with a nifty little patch that makes it possible to ensure that a function is _only_ used at ctfe.
Or the opposite.

static assert(__ctfe, "This function is not supposed to be called outside of ctfe");
and static assert(!__ctfe, "This function is not supposed to be called during ctfe");

similarly you can use static if (__ctfe).

Is it worth trying to get it into master ?

On Monday, 29 August 2016 at 00:24:01 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
I feel that this can have a positive
> I am happy for all comments or suggestions.

Incredible work! Keep up!

On 2016-08-29 10:39, Stefan Koch wrote:

> Thanks guys.
>
> I just came up with a nifty little patch that makes it possible to
> ensure that a function is _only_ used at ctfe.
> Or the opposite.
>
> static assert(__ctfe, "This function is not supposed to be called
> outside of ctfe");
> and static assert(!__ctfe, "This function is not supposed to be called
> during ctfe");
>
> similarly you can use static if (__ctfe).
>
> Is it worth trying to get it into master ?

Wow, absolutely :)

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg