On 6/21/2012 11:49 PM, Mehrdad wrote:
> On Friday, 22 June 2012 at 06:35:41 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 6/21/2012 11:07 PM, Mehrdad wrote:
>>> Good luck getting the C-runtime part of the "D runtime" right..
>>
>> It's not that hard. But there's a lot of detail to learn & take care of.
>
>
> Where do you find the "detail"?

One way is to get the library source code for the C compiler and study it.

On 22/06/12 10:08, Mehrdad wrote:
> On Friday, 22 June 2012 at 08:00:08 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
>> Then implement the ones you happen to actually need.
>
>
> Er, the question isn't WHAT to do, it's HOW.
>
> If you have any idea how to implement things like TLS, SEH, and the
> like, then PLEASE, share them!

On Windows, all of the SEH code is in D. The C library isn't used any more.

I think the main thing that's still done in C is the floating point formatting.

> The point I was trying to make was, though, that this information is not
> being shared with anyone.
>
> Which leads me to believe that whoever has this information doesn't want
> people to use it for D development...

On Friday, 22 June 2012 at 09:50:54 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 6/21/2012 11:49 PM, Mehrdad wrote:
>> On Friday, 22 June 2012 at 06:35:41 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> On 6/21/2012 11:07 PM, Mehrdad wrote:
>>>> Good luck getting the C-runtime part of the "D runtime" right..
>>>
>>> It's not that hard. But there's a lot of detail to learn & take care of.
>>
>>
>> Where do you find the "detail"?
>
> One way is to get the library source code for the C compiler and study it.


By "get" you mean "buy", right?

I find that to be against D's (supposedly) open-source nature...

On Friday, 22 June 2012 at 08:35:51 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
> Look at say Win32 API. There is a way to reroute most of things you listed directly to it. I actually do this kind of stuff in my spare time. Of course your own kernel has some manner of system calls too.

I'm talking about things like PE file sections used to support TLS and whatnot.

They're unrelated to the Windows API.



> If you can't figure it out on your own, chances are you won't be able to do what you wanted in the first place (e.g. real-time micro-kernel).


You're not being helpful.


> I mean it's nothing magical, all of these things are present in say MS C compiler and people do these things with it just _fine_.

Uh, no. D puts extra crap in the binary.


> Yeah, I understand how it could be frustrating, but once you are on this kind of level you usually already running circles around all of this stuff.
> That being said the info won't hurt of course.


I guess I'm not at your majesty's High Level yet? Thanks for being so helpful.

On 22-Jun-12 18:17, Mehrdad wrote:
> You're not being helpful.

While I usually try to help people where I can do so
I didn't intend to _help_ you with this post in any capacity.
Aside from
>Just replace all of symbols with abort stubs. Then implement the ones >you happen to actually need.
but you are (probably) way ahead of this advice.

>
>> I mean it's nothing magical, all of these things are present in say MS
>> C compiler and people do these things with it just _fine_.
>
> Uh, no. D puts extra crap in the binary.

Like what? I'm aware only of some fancy _beg/_end sections and a bunch of stuff from DMC runtime, mostly FP math things.

>
>> Yeah, I understand how it could be frustrating, but once you are on
>> this kind of level you usually already running circles around all of
>> this stuff.
>> That being said the info won't hurt of course.
>
>
> I guess I'm not at your majesty's High Level yet? Thanks for being so
> helpful.
No problem. I meant actually low level. Like "down to hardware/OS" so it's rather the opposite ;)
It's not like I've asserted yours or mine levels at anything in particular at all.
(that 'you' in my paragraph above should have probably been 'one' i.e. 'once one on this kind of level...')


-- 
Dmitry Olshansky

On Friday, 22 June 2012 at 11:41:26 UTC, Don Clugston wrote:
> On Windows, all of the SEH code is in D. The C library isn't used any more.


That's certainly changed a lot since the last time I looked, so that's good.


But lots of other parts about D (TLS, GC, etc.) still have that problem though.
I was never able to get the __xi_a, __xi_z, etc. stuff correct, and I've spent a heck of a lot of time on it.

The way I'm understanding it is that the message is essentially "If you want to develop your own systems with our systems programming language, then you gotta buy it, sorry. Batteries not included."

On Friday, 22 June 2012 at 14:40:42 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
>> I guess I'm not at your majesty's High Level yet? Thanks for being so
>> helpful.
> No problem.

Someone can't recognize sarcasm...


> I meant actually low level. Like "down to hardware/OS" so it's rather the opposite ;)
> It's not like I've asserted yours or mine levels at anything in particular at all.


Allow me to translate?

"Geez, I guess you're just an idiot for needing so much spoon-fed to you.
I can land people on the moon without anyone ever telling me how.

Not that I never insulted you at anything in particular."




> (that 'you' in my paragraph above should have probably been 'one' i.e. 'once one on this kind of level...')


Oh, so now you're insulting /everyone/ like me, instead of just me!
That obviously makes the situation better.



Are you serious? So you're going to tell people they're just too stupid for the task if they can't figure something out by themselves?

On 06/22/2012 04:58 PM, Mehrdad wrote:
> On Friday, 22 June 2012 at 14:40:42 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
>>> I guess I'm not at your majesty's High Level yet? Thanks for being so
>>> helpful.
>> No problem.
>
> Someone can't recognize sarcasm...
>
>
>> I meant actually low level. Like "down to hardware/OS" so it's rather
>> the opposite ;)
>> It's not like I've asserted yours or mine levels at anything in
>> particular at all.
>
>
> Allow me to translate?
>
> "Geez, I guess you're just an idiot for needing so much spoon-fed to you.
> I can land people on the moon without anyone ever telling me how.
>
> Not that I never insulted you at anything in particular."
>
>
>
>
>> (that 'you' in my paragraph above should have probably been 'one' i.e.
>> 'once one on this kind of level...')
>
>
> Oh, so now you're insulting /everyone/ like me, instead of just me!
> That obviously makes the situation better.
>
>
>
> Are you serious? So you're going to tell people they're just too stupid
> for the task if they can't figure something out by themselves?

Note that this kind of melodramatism is not helping your case.
Getting insulted and shooting in all directions is genuinely stupid
behaviour and wastes everyone's time.

You have to realize that some of your comments have been rather
impolite lately. Why do you assume that everyone else cares a lot more
about how some random comment might be conceived?

On Friday, 22 June 2012 at 15:12:13 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> Note that this kind of melodramatism is not helping your case.
> Getting insulted and shooting in all directions is genuinely stupid behaviour and wastes everyone's time.
>
> You have to realize that some of your comments have been rather
> impolite lately.

You mean in response to @Dmitri's comments? Or to someone else?

It would be very helpful for me if you could show a couple examples of what you're referring to.


> Why do you assume that everyone else cares a lot more about how some random comment might be conceived?

"Might" be conceived? Is it really just me? Okay, well then you tell me:

Isn't the quote
> If you can't figure it out on your own, chances are you won't be able to
do what you wanted in the first place
just saying I'm too stupid for this to help me anyway?

On 06/22/2012 05:21 PM, Mehrdad wrote:
> On Friday, 22 June 2012 at 15:12:13 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> Note that this kind of melodramatism is not helping your case.
>> Getting insulted and shooting in all directions is genuinely stupid
>> behaviour and wastes everyone's time.
>>
>> You have to realize that some of your comments have been rather
>> impolite lately.
>
> You mean in response to @Dmitri's comments? Or to someone else?
>
> It would be very helpful for me if you could show a couple examples of
> what you're referring to.
>

You like blaming someone, or claiming someone has bad intentions. Eg:

> Which leads me to believe that whoever has this information doesn't want people to use it for D development...

> The way I'm understanding it is that the message is essentially "If you want to develop your own
> systems with our systems programming language, then you gotta buy it, sorry. Batteries not included."

There is no need to deduce such messages from insufficient support or
documentation of a free product run 100% by volunteers.

Who should such comments be directed at? What should their effect be? I only see it generating bad air.


>
>> Why do you assume that everyone else cares a lot more about how some
>> random comment might be conceived?
>
> "Might" be conceived? Is it really just me? Okay, well then you tell me:
>
> Isn't the quote
>> If you can't figure it out on your own, chances are you won't be able to
> do what you wanted in the first place
> just saying I'm too stupid for this to help me anyway?

I think it does not matter, because the optimal reaction would be the same in each case: ignore the comment and continue the productive part
of the discussion.