gdc is in (page 3)

On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 15:11:39 UTC, Joakim wrote: > the gcc tree: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2017-06/msg00111.html > > Congratulations to Iain and the gdc team. :) > > I found out because it's on the front page of HN right now, where commenters are asking questions about D. An update, including the latest 2.076 frontend: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=D-GCC-v3-Patches

On Tuesday, 3 October 2017 at 22:00:51 UTC, Joakim wrote: > On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 15:11:39 UTC, Joakim wrote: >> the gcc tree: >> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2017-06/msg00111.html >> >> Congratulations to Iain and the gdc team. :) >> >> I found out because it's on the front page of HN right now, where commenters are asking questions about D. > > An update, including the latest 2.076 frontend: > > https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=D-GCC-v3-Patches Does this include DMD and static if?

GCC 8 Dne 4. 10. 2017 8:10 dopoledne napsal uživatel "Suliman via Digitalmars-d" < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com>: > On Tuesday, 3 October 2017 at 22:00:51 UTC, Joakim wrote: > >> On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 15:11:39 UTC, Joakim wrote: >> >>> the gcc tree: >>> >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2017-06/msg00111.html >>> >>> Congratulations to Iain and the gdc team. :) >>> >>> I found out because it's on the front page of HN right now, where commenters are asking questions about D. >>> >> >> An update, including the latest 2.076 frontend: >> >> https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=D-GCC-v3-Patches >> > > Cool, which version of GCC will have it? >

On Wednesday, 4 October 2017 at 05:56:41 UTC, Per Nordlöw wrote: > On Tuesday, 3 October 2017 at 22:00:51 UTC, Joakim wrote: >> On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 15:11:39 UTC, Joakim wrote: >>> the gcc tree: >>> >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2017-06/msg00111.html >>> >>> Congratulations to Iain and the gdc team. :) >>> >>> I found out because it's on the front page of HN right now, where commenters are asking questions about D. >> >> An update, including the latest 2.076 frontend: >> >> https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=D-GCC-v3-Patches > > Does this include DMD and static if? I assume you mean ddmd and static foreach, the mailing list post linked from my link implies it includes both.

On Friday, 6 October 2017 at 15:04:25 UTC, Joakim wrote: > > I assume you mean ddmd and static foreach, the mailing list post linked from my link implies it includes both. I would think this would be bigger news...I mean LDC isn't even on 2.076 yet...

On 6 October 2017 at 17:21, jmh530 via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > On Friday, 6 October 2017 at 15:04:25 UTC, Joakim wrote: >> >> >> I assume you mean ddmd and static foreach, the mailing list post linked from my link implies it includes both. > > > I would think this would be bigger news...I mean LDC isn't even on 2.076 yet... Really? Well, maintenance should be rather small now that the patch / diff is relatively tiny for GDC. Rebasing only against dmd/stable branch on a weekly basis or so should help things along also.

On Friday, 6 October 2017 at 17:04:39 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: > > > Really? Well, maintenance should be rather small now that the patch / diff is relatively tiny for GDC. Rebasing only against dmd/stable branch on a weekly basis or so should help things along also. As long as I've been following D, GDC has been behind DMD for several releases. I would figure you would want to broadcast a bit more widely that you're caught up. It's good news, no?

On Friday, 6 October 2017 at 17:04:39 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: > On 6 October 2017 at 17:21, jmh530 via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: >> On Friday, 6 October 2017 at 15:04:25 UTC, Joakim wrote: >>> >>> >>> I assume you mean ddmd and static foreach, the mailing list post linked from my link implies it includes both. >> >> >> I would think this would be bigger news...I mean LDC isn't even on 2.076 yet... > > > Really? Well, maintenance should be rather small now that the patch / diff is relatively tiny for GDC. Rebasing only against dmd/stable branch on a weekly basis or so should help things along also. A lot of (most, even?) D users ignore GDC because it's been substantially behind the cutting edge for so long. Managing to catch up and become relevant to them is big news, if you want users. To clarify: this includes Phobos, right?

October 06, 2017

Re: gdc is in

Posted by Iain Buclaw
in reply to John Colvin

Permalink

Iain Buclaw

Posted in reply to John Colvin

Permalink

On 6 October 2017 at 22:34, John Colvin via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 6 October 2017 at 17:04:39 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>
>> On 6 October 2017 at 17:21, jmh530 via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Friday, 6 October 2017 at 15:04:25 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I assume you mean ddmd and static foreach, the mailing list post linked from my link implies it includes both.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would think this would be bigger news...I mean LDC isn't even on 2.076 yet...
>>
>>
>>
>> Really?  Well, maintenance should be rather small now that the patch /
>> diff is relatively tiny for GDC.  Rebasing only against dmd/stable branch on
>> a weekly basis or so should help things along also.
>
>
> A lot of (most, even?) D users ignore GDC because it's been substantially behind the cutting edge for so long. Managing to catch up and become relevant to them is big news, if you want users.
>

I always assumed it was the license that put people off. ;-)

> To clarify: this includes Phobos, right?

Phobos is 2.076 as-is.  The compiler supports enough of the feature-set, bug and regression fixes to compile the library and pass the testsuite.

The switch from C++ to D(DMD) is still in a PR:
https://github.com/D-Programming-GDC/GDC/pull/550

Nothing is really blocking it, but it will go in a separate branch to start off with.

Iain.

Forums