"Joseph Rushton Wakeling" <joseph.wakeling@webdrake.net> wrote in message news:mailman.304.1386341329.3242.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
> On 05/12/13 04:08, Daniel Murphy wrote:
>> As Walter said, there is no chance of that happening.  However, we are
>> slowly working to integrate or refactor away all gdc/ldc patches against
>> the
>> frontend.  This should greatly reduce the effort to merge patches,
>> hopefully
>> resulting in all three compilers permanently being in sync.
>
> .... just as I brought the topic up in another branch of this thread [*] ... :-)
>
> How are things going with that, what's the current status in terms of GDC/LDC patches being eliminated?  Do you have any idea of the timeframe within which it'll be complete, and does it rely at all on the C++ --> D transition?
>

It's going very slowly.  There have been a few pulls working on some areas, but most of my effort has been on the d port.  The frontend unification does not depend on the D port, and the D port is not technically blocked by it, but we will need to finish it before abandoning the C++ version of the frontend.

I'd love to give a timeframe, but I don't have that much control over it.  A fairly important step is currently blocked because Walter is sitting on a pull request. (https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/2754)

On 06/12/13 16:37, Daniel Murphy wrote:
> It's going very slowly.  There have been a few pulls working on some areas,
> but most of my effort has been on the d port.  The frontend unification does
> not depend on the D port, and the D port is not technically blocked by it,
> but we will need to finish it before abandoning the C++ version of the
> frontend.

OK, clear.  It's kind of what I'd expected; I'm glad to see that it's planned as a precursor to the D transition rather than something to take place as part of it.

> I'd love to give a timeframe, but I don't have that much control over it.  A
> fairly important step is currently blocked because Walter is sitting on a
> pull request. (https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/2754)

That's a shame though I guess somewhat inevitable given that we're talking about quite significant changes.

Is there a documented TODO list anywhere?  And is there anything that those of us not contributing frontend code can do to help?  (No, not spamming Walter with "Please look at Pull Request 2754!" messages:-)

On 12/6/13 3:45 AM, Tourist wrote:
> On Thursday, 5 December 2013 at 14:44:41 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 12/4/13 10:57 PM, Martin Nowak wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 3 December 2013 at 20:53:28 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>> Also does everybody like the graphics at the top of
>>>> http://dconf.org/2014/index.html?
>>>>
>>> Frankly, it's awful.
>>
>> I agree!!
>>
>> Andrei
>
> I'm not a designer, but I think whatever alternative is better.
>
> My try:
> http://imgur.com/a/hCIPm
>
> Font: Sansus Webissimo

s/2013/2014/

Andrei

On Friday, 6 December 2013 at 20:35:10 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 12/6/13 3:45 AM, Tourist wrote:
>> On Thursday, 5 December 2013 at 14:44:41 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> On 12/4/13 10:57 PM, Martin Nowak wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 3 December 2013 at 20:53:28 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>>> Also does everybody like the graphics at the top of
>>>>> http://dconf.org/2014/index.html?
>>>>>
>>>> Frankly, it's awful.
>>>
>>> I agree!!
>>>
>>> Andrei
>>
>> I'm not a designer, but I think whatever alternative is better.
>>
>> My try:
>> http://imgur.com/a/hCIPm
>>
>> Font: Sansus Webissimo
>
> s/2013/2014/
>
> Andrei

lol, I saw you've pulled the 2013 one.
http://forum.dlang.org/post/wtsohypsvefsabegidmy@forum.dlang.org

"Joseph Rushton Wakeling" <joseph.wakeling@webdrake.net> wrote in message news:mailman.307.1386345047.3242.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
> On 06/12/13 16:37, Daniel Murphy wrote:
>
> Is there a documented TODO list anywhere?  And is there anything that those of us not contributing frontend code can do to help?  (No, not spamming Walter with "Please look at Pull Request 2754!" messages:-)

The TODO list is basically the diff between dmd's and ldc/gdc's frontends. I don't know of anything to do outside of the code, this is pretty much an internal refactoring and shouldn't have any visible effects on anything else.

On 12/6/2013 4:13 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> So, that means that if you need the ability to get fast turnaround on bugfixes
> or new features, you HAVE to run DMD.

Or, you could contribute to the gdc and ldc projects!

On Thursday, 12 December 2013 at 22:46:26 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 12/6/2013 4:13 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
>> So, that means that if you need the ability to get fast turnaround on bugfixes
>> or new features, you HAVE to run DMD.
>
> Or, you could contribute to the gdc and ldc projects!

Well, when I first contributed to Phobos I looked into getting the same patches accepted into GDC, not least because I wanted the functionality for my own work. It wasn't really a workable thing to do, both because of the lack of common git history and because GDC (as LDC) works by matching the features of the current stable release -- so adding stuff only available via git-HEAD Phobos wasn't really an option.

That situation would be much different if the frontend were truly common across all backends.

On 12 December 2013 23:01, Joseph Rushton Wakeling <joseph.wakeling@webdrake.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, 12 December 2013 at 22:46:26 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>
>> On 12/6/2013 4:13 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
>>>
>>> So, that means that if you need the ability to get fast turnaround on
>>> bugfixes
>>> or new features, you HAVE to run DMD.
>>
>>
>> Or, you could contribute to the gdc and ldc projects!
>
>
> Well, when I first contributed to Phobos I looked into getting the same patches accepted into GDC, not least because I wanted the functionality for my own work. It wasn't really a workable thing to do, both because of the lack of common git history and because GDC (as LDC) works by matching the features of the current stable release -- so adding stuff only available via git-HEAD Phobos wasn't really an option.
>

Well patches that go into phobos will soon hit gdc (eventually) - and there's nothing wrong with cherry picking much needed patches prior to release, if you can't wait 6 months for the next release and your bug to be fixed.

Of course, what you can't guarantee is if fixing a bug in phobos has some dependency on semantic changes/but fixed in the frontend.

> That situation would be much different if the frontend were truly common across all backends.

It's not too bad nowadays, I'll update the differences list sometime today, but the only notable differences now between the two are:

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/2694 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/2200 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/2176

Where unless #2694 is applied, gdc will FTBFS.  And unless #2200 and #2176 are applied, gdc will ICE when compiling certain code.

Regards
Iain.

"Iain Buclaw" <ibuclaw@gdcproject.org> wrote in message news:mailman.525.1386923049.3242.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
> On 12 December 2013 23:01, Joseph Rushton Wakeling <joseph.wakeling@webdrake.net> wrote:
>> On Thursday, 12 December 2013 at 22:46:26 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12/6/2013 4:13 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So, that means that if you need the ability to get fast turnaround on
>>>> bugfixes
>>>> or new features, you HAVE to run DMD.
>>>
>>>
>>> Or, you could contribute to the gdc and ldc projects!
>>
>>
>> Well, when I first contributed to Phobos I looked into getting the same
>> patches accepted into GDC, not least because I wanted the functionality
>> for
>> my own work. It wasn't really a workable thing to do, both because of the
>> lack of common git history and because GDC (as LDC) works by matching the
>> features of the current stable release -- so adding stuff only available
>> via
>> git-HEAD Phobos wasn't really an option.
>>
>
> Well patches that go into phobos will soon hit gdc (eventually) - and there's nothing wrong with cherry picking much needed patches prior to release, if you can't wait 6 months for the next release and your bug to be fixed.
>
> Of course, what you can't guarantee is if fixing a bug in phobos has some dependency on semantic changes/but fixed in the frontend.
>
>> That situation would be much different if the frontend were truly common across all backends.
>
> It's not too bad nowadays, I'll update the differences list sometime today, but the only notable differences now between the two are:
>
> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/2694 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/2200 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/2176
>
> Where unless #2694 is applied, gdc will FTBFS.  And unless #2200 and #2176 are applied, gdc will ICE when compiling certain code.
>
> Regards
> Iain.

Well, you know how I feel about 2594.  If you merge that ddmd will FTBFS.

On 13 December 2013 11:11, Daniel Murphy <yebblies@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
> "Iain Buclaw" <ibuclaw@gdcproject.org> wrote in message news:mailman.525.1386923049.3242.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
>> On 12 December 2013 23:01, Joseph Rushton Wakeling <joseph.wakeling@webdrake.net> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 12 December 2013 at 22:46:26 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 12/6/2013 4:13 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> So, that means that if you need the ability to get fast turnaround on
>>>>> bugfixes
>>>>> or new features, you HAVE to run DMD.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or, you could contribute to the gdc and ldc projects!
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, when I first contributed to Phobos I looked into getting the same
>>> patches accepted into GDC, not least because I wanted the functionality
>>> for
>>> my own work. It wasn't really a workable thing to do, both because of the
>>> lack of common git history and because GDC (as LDC) works by matching the
>>> features of the current stable release -- so adding stuff only available
>>> via
>>> git-HEAD Phobos wasn't really an option.
>>>
>>
>> Well patches that go into phobos will soon hit gdc (eventually) - and there's nothing wrong with cherry picking much needed patches prior to release, if you can't wait 6 months for the next release and your bug to be fixed.
>>
>> Of course, what you can't guarantee is if fixing a bug in phobos has some dependency on semantic changes/but fixed in the frontend.
>>
>>> That situation would be much different if the frontend were truly common across all backends.
>>
>> It's not too bad nowadays, I'll update the differences list sometime today, but the only notable differences now between the two are:
>>
>> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/2694 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/2200 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/2176
>>
>> Where unless #2694 is applied, gdc will FTBFS.  And unless #2200 and #2176 are applied, gdc will ICE when compiling certain code.
>>
>> Regards
>> Iain.
>
> Well, you know how I feel about 2594.  If you merge that ddmd will FTBFS.
>
>

Yeah, it's my fault really. I should have foresaw how the change would have affected me *before* I hit merge.  Curse you hindsight! :o)