On 8 January 2012 21:49, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:

> On 1/8/2012 3:02 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
>
>> If not, we're bound to need COFF eventually.
>
>
> Probably. Or elf.
>

Elf? Don't be silly. Windows needs COFF. I should be able to use the visual studio linker.

On Sunday, 8 January 2012 at 00:27:46 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 1/7/2012 6:00 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> Will dmd still produce OMF or will it be changed to produce COFF?
>
> It will be irrelevant, as the linker will read whatever it puts out, and the linker will read COFF.
>
> There is no reason why a linker cannot transparently read many object and library file formats. I even want the linker to be able to read a DLL and figure out how to interface it without needing to build a corresponding import library.
>
> There's quite a bit that can be done that was impractical for linkers of yore because of severe memory constraints.

It certainly won't be irrelevant, as people will want to produce libraries with dmd too, and other toolchains have to be able to read them.

On 1/8/2012 6:14 AM, Trass3r wrote:
> e.g. https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/375 fixes severe bugs
> with postblits/destructors and has been open for 4 months already without any
> comment from your side.

Don knows what he's doing, and it's waiting for fixes to his observations. Meanwhile, there are a ton of other pull requests that are ready to go that I've been pulling in steadily.

> We have to live with the fact that bugs are fixed
> somewhat randomly (i.e. the bugzilla voting system is completely ignored), but
> it isn't acceptable that we have to deal with bugs that have been fixed months
> ago but just not merged yet.

See my comment above.

> Bug 314 is a prime example for all of that (most
> voted bug for years, fixed in ldc long ago, pull request was open for ages).

That one has been pulled and merged.

> Also the dmd code needs improvement. It should leverage C++11 features, become
> more modular and code quality needs to be improved. For example the typed Array
> was long overdue, yet people still use that crappy tdata() syntax instead of
> just []. The C++11 range based for loop would be a logical next step for that.
> Other things that come to my mind are replacing hard-coded values with proper
> constants, introducing smart pointers so at least some memory is released and
> better (documentation) comments.

I'd like to use C++11 features in the dmd source, too. The downside is that all the C++ compilers on all the current and potential targets for D need to reliably support those C++11 features. Currently, this is not close to true, and likely won't be for some time.

The minor benefit of those features is not worth arbitrarily shutting the door on some targets.

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 23:23:16 +0100, Manu <turkeyman@gmail.com> wrote:

> Just for the record, my post was intentionally excessively inflammatory. I
> do like a good IDE vs non-IDE debate! :P
>
> On 7 January 2012 22:22, Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote:
>

Investing time to get familiar with emacs has been a huge win for me.
D with posix+emacs+gdb is on par with C++ and very productive IMHO.

martin

By the way, Walter, I'm fixing druntime and Phobos makefiles after the Shared ELF merge so they can be built as shared libs (I have them working both now, on my FreeBSD box). I just wanna ask you, I think it would be a good idea to remove default phobos2 linkage from dmd and move that to dmd.conf instead, as the phobos2 linkage comes after dmd.conf linkages and druntime has to be linked after phobos (I'd like them as separate libs). Do you think I can do that, or any other idea?

Am 08.01.2012, 20:59 Uhr, schrieb Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com>:

> On 1/8/2012 6:14 AM, Trass3r wrote:
>> e.g. https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/375 fixes severe bugs
>> with postblits/destructors and has been open for 4 months already without any
>> comment from your side.
>
> Don knows what he's doing, and it's waiting for fixes to his observations.

You should have posted there that you are waiting for this.
As I understand it Kenji has fixed some stuff that Don mentioned, but won't do anything about the points that are optimizations rather than fixes soon.
So wouldn't it be better to pull now?

> I'd like to use C++11 features in the dmd source, too. The downside is that all the C++ compilers on all the current and potential targets for D need to reliably support those C++11 features. Currently, this is not close to true, and likely won't be for some time.

I thought even dmc supports a few features.
Which one doesn't implement C++11 at all?

> Clang is a lot slower at compiling than dmc.

With or without optimizations?
Would be interesting to see detailed comparisons lexing/parsing/... like http://clang.llvm.org/performance.html

Am 08.01.2012, 20:58 Uhr, schrieb q66 <quaker66@gmail.com>:

> On Sunday, 8 January 2012 at 00:27:46 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 1/7/2012 6:00 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>>> Will dmd still produce OMF or will it be changed to produce COFF?
>>
>> It will be irrelevant, as the linker will read whatever it puts out, and the linker will read COFF.
> It certainly won't be irrelevant, as people will want to produce libraries with dmd too, and other toolchains have to be able to read them.

Good point.

Am 08.01.2012, 21:04 Uhr, schrieb q66 <quaker66@gmail.com>:

> By the way, Walter, I'm fixing druntime and Phobos makefiles after the Shared ELF merge so they can be built as shared libs (I have them working both now, on my FreeBSD box). I just wanna ask you, I think it would be a good idea to remove default phobos2 linkage from dmd and move that to dmd.conf instead, as the phobos2 linkage comes after dmd.conf linkages and druntime has to be linked after phobos (I'd like them as separate libs). Do you think I can do that, or any other idea?

I hope you know that shared libraries still don't work.
It needs runtime which is currently being merged.

There are ShareRuntime branches for dmd/druntime/phobos
https://github.com/dawgfoto
and I'd be glad have a cleaner Makefile solution than mine.

On Sunday, 8 January 2012 at 21:10:21 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
> Am 08.01.2012, 21:04 Uhr, schrieb q66 <quaker66@gmail.com>:
>
>> By the way, Walter, I'm fixing druntime and Phobos makefiles after the Shared ELF merge so they can be built as shared libs (I have them working both now, on my FreeBSD box). I just wanna ask you, I think it would be a good idea to remove default phobos2 linkage from dmd and move that to dmd.conf instead, as the phobos2 linkage comes after dmd.conf linkages and druntime has to be linked after phobos (I'd like them as separate libs). Do you think I can do that, or any other idea?
>
> I hope you know that shared libraries still don't work.
> It needs runtime which is currently being merged.
>
> There are ShareRuntime branches for dmd/druntime/phobos
> https://github.com/dawgfoto
> and I'd be glad have a cleaner Makefile solution than mine.

don't work? I use git and they're working perfectly fine for me :)