Thread overview | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
April 10, 2012 Is anyone hacking on druntime in a widespread fashion at the moment? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
I'm planning to go over druntime and add nothrow/pure everywhere I can, but I don't want to disturb anyone else who's currently working on patches that this could disrupt.
--
- Alex
|
April 10, 2012 Re: Is anyone hacking on druntime in a widespread fashion at the moment? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Alex Rønne Petersen | On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:10:19AM +0200, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote: > I'm planning to go over druntime and add nothrow/pure everywhere I can, but I don't want to disturb anyone else who's currently working on patches that this could disrupt. [...] Please do. The current lack of proper function qualifiers has been bugging me to no end, every time I try to do the same in my own code. I inevitably have to remove some qualifiers that should be there, just because of a single druntime construct that wasn't properly qualified. And while you're at it, you might want to consider const too. Last I looked, a whole bunch of stuff that should be const, isn't. And best of luck to you... the last time I tried to do the same thing I ended up changing almost the entire druntime, and still couldn't get the result to compile. T -- "I speak better English than this villain Bush" -- Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, Iraqi Minister of Information |
April 10, 2012 Re: Is anyone hacking on druntime in a widespread fashion at the moment? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to H. S. Teoh | On 11-04-2012 01:09, H. S. Teoh wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:10:19AM +0200, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote: >> I'm planning to go over druntime and add nothrow/pure everywhere I >> can, but I don't want to disturb anyone else who's currently working >> on patches that this could disrupt. > [...] > > Please do. The current lack of proper function qualifiers has been > bugging me to no end, every time I try to do the same in my own code. I > inevitably have to remove some qualifiers that should be there, just > because of a single druntime construct that wasn't properly qualified. > > And while you're at it, you might want to consider const too. Last I > looked, a whole bunch of stuff that should be const, isn't. > > And best of luck to you... the last time I tried to do the same thing I > ended up changing almost the entire druntime, and still couldn't get the > result to compile. > > > T > Yeah, I've made several attempts in the past without much luck... Hopefully I'll get there at some point. So, I won't disrupt your AA hacking by doing this? -- - Alex |
April 10, 2012 Re: Is anyone hacking on druntime in a widespread fashion at the moment? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Attachments:
| On Apr 10, 2012 7:08 PM, "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:10:19AM +0200, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> > I'm planning to go over druntime and add nothrow/pure everywhere I can, but I don't want to disturb anyone else who's currently working on patches that this could disrupt.
> [...]
>
> Please do. The current lack of proper function qualifiers has been bugging me to no end, every time I try to do the same in my own code. I inevitably have to remove some qualifiers that should be there, just because of a single druntime construct that wasn't properly qualified.
>
> And while you're at it, you might want to consider const too. Last I looked, a whole bunch of stuff that should be const, isn't.
>
> And best of luck to you... the last time I tried to do the same thing I ended up changing almost the entire druntime, and still couldn't get the result to compile.
>
>
> T
>
> --
> "I speak better English than this villain Bush" -- Mohammed Saeed
al-Sahaf, Iraqi Minister of Information
I was wondering why they could not be implied from the code itself.
|
April 10, 2012 Re: Is anyone hacking on druntime in a widespread fashion at the moment? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Alex Rønne Petersen | On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 01:09:48AM +0200, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote: > On 11-04-2012 01:09, H. S. Teoh wrote: > >On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:10:19AM +0200, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote: > >>I'm planning to go over druntime and add nothrow/pure everywhere I can, but I don't want to disturb anyone else who's currently working on patches that this could disrupt. > >[...] > > > >Please do. The current lack of proper function qualifiers has been bugging me to no end, every time I try to do the same in my own code. I inevitably have to remove some qualifiers that should be there, just because of a single druntime construct that wasn't properly qualified. > > > >And while you're at it, you might want to consider const too. Last I looked, a whole bunch of stuff that should be const, isn't. > > > >And best of luck to you... the last time I tried to do the same thing I ended up changing almost the entire druntime, and still couldn't get the result to compile. > > > > > >T > > > > Yeah, I've made several attempts in the past without much luck... Hopefully I'll get there at some point. > > So, I won't disrupt your AA hacking by doing this? [...] No, I'm doing the new AA as a completely separate struct for now. I won't be touching druntime until the AA code itself is more-or-less completed. Once that's done, it should be just a matter of copy-n-pasting into object_.d with some minor changes (plus what's anticipated to be very painful dmd changes, from what people have been telling me :-P). In fact, if druntime stuff is properly marked, I'll be able to uncomment a few more qualifiers in the AA code that currently can't work 'cos of druntime's brokenness. T -- Long, long ago, the ancient Chinese invented a device that lets them see through walls. It was called the "window". |
April 10, 2012 Re: Is anyone hacking on druntime in a widespread fashion at the moment? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to H. S. Teoh | On 11-04-2012 01:29, H. S. Teoh wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 01:09:48AM +0200, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote: >> On 11-04-2012 01:09, H. S. Teoh wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:10:19AM +0200, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote: >>>> I'm planning to go over druntime and add nothrow/pure everywhere I >>>> can, but I don't want to disturb anyone else who's currently working >>>> on patches that this could disrupt. >>> [...] >>> >>> Please do. The current lack of proper function qualifiers has been >>> bugging me to no end, every time I try to do the same in my own code. I >>> inevitably have to remove some qualifiers that should be there, just >>> because of a single druntime construct that wasn't properly qualified. >>> >>> And while you're at it, you might want to consider const too. Last I >>> looked, a whole bunch of stuff that should be const, isn't. >>> >>> And best of luck to you... the last time I tried to do the same thing I >>> ended up changing almost the entire druntime, and still couldn't get the >>> result to compile. >>> >>> >>> T >>> >> >> Yeah, I've made several attempts in the past without much luck... >> Hopefully I'll get there at some point. >> >> So, I won't disrupt your AA hacking by doing this? > [...] > > No, I'm doing the new AA as a completely separate struct for now. I > won't be touching druntime until the AA code itself is more-or-less > completed. Once that's done, it should be just a matter of > copy-n-pasting into object_.d with some minor changes (plus what's > anticipated to be very painful dmd changes, from what people have been > telling me :-P). > > In fact, if druntime stuff is properly marked, I'll be able to uncomment > a few more qualifiers in the AA code that currently can't work 'cos of > druntime's brokenness. > > > T > Excellent. I'll get to it then. :) -- - Alex |
April 11, 2012 Re: Is anyone hacking on druntime in a widespread fashion at the moment? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Alex Rønne Petersen | Le 11/04/2012 00:10, Alex Rønne Petersen a écrit :
> I'm planning to go over druntime and add nothrow/pure everywhere I can,
> but I don't want to disturb anyone else who's currently working on
> patches that this could disrupt.
>
Can't we consider this as an inference issue ?
|
April 11, 2012 Re: Is anyone hacking on druntime in a widespread fashion at themoment? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Kevin Cox | "Kevin Cox" <kevincox.ca@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mailman.1599.1334099575.4860.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com... > >I was wondering why they could not be implied from the code itself. That question comes up a lot. The thing is, that would completely defeat the point. The point is that you want the compiler to *guarantee* that certain specific functions are pure/@safe/const/nothrow, etc. If you make a change that prevents a function from being pure/@safe/const/nothrow, and the compiler just simply accepted it and internally considered it non-pure/non-whatever, then you haven't gained anything at all. It'd be no different from not even having any pure/@safe/const/nothrow system in the first place. At *best* it would just be a few optimizations here and there. But if the compiler tells you, "Hey, you said you wanted this function to be pure/whatever, but you're doing X which prevents that", then you can actually *fix* the problem and go make it pure/whatever. |
April 11, 2012 Re: Is anyone hacking on druntime in a widespread fashion at themoment? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Nick Sabalausky Attachments:
| On Apr 11, 2012 4:14 PM, "Nick Sabalausky" < SeeWebsiteToContactMe@semitwist.com> wrote: > > "Kevin Cox" <kevincox.ca@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mailman.1599.1334099575.4860.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com... > > > >I was wondering why they could not be implied from the code itself. > > That question comes up a lot. The thing is, that would completely defeat the > point. The point is that you want the compiler to *guarantee* that certain specific functions are pure/@safe/const/nothrow, etc. > > If you make a change that prevents a function from being pure/@safe/const/nothrow, and the compiler just simply accepted it and internally considered it non-pure/non-whatever, then you haven't gained anything at all. It'd be no different from not even having any pure/@safe/const/nothrow system in the first place. At *best* it would just > be a few optimizations here and there. > > But if the compiler tells you, "Hey, you said you wanted this function to be > pure/whatever, but you're doing X which prevents that", then you can actually *fix* the problem and go make it pure/whatever. > Makes sense. |
April 11, 2012 Re: Is anyone hacking on druntime in a widespread fashion at the moment? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to deadalnix | On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 22:01:36 deadalnix wrote:
> Le 11/04/2012 00:10, Alex Rønne Petersen a écrit :
> > I'm planning to go over druntime and add nothrow/pure everywhere I can, but I don't want to disturb anyone else who's currently working on patches that this could disrupt.
>
> Can't we consider this as an inference issue ?
How so? Attribute inference exists only for templated functions and some delegate stuff. We're talking primarily about extern(C) function declarations here.
- Jonathan M Davis
|
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation