On 2013-03-07 18:31:34 +0000, Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> said:

> On 2013-03-07 15:55, Kagamin wrote:
> 
>> I heard, llvm was written for C and x86. C++, exceptions and ARM pushed
>> it beyond its limits and created a lot of kludge and redesigns.
> 
> Apple is betting everything on Clang/LLVM and they really need ARM for iOS. They have basically given up on GCC. Last time GCC got update was with Xcode 3.2.6, latest Xcode is 4.6, according to this:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xcode#Toolchain_Versions

In other words, Apple stopped using newer versions of GCC when the licence changed to GPLv3. I wonder where Clang/LLVM would be today if GCC was still available under GPLv2.

-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin@michelf.ca
http://michelf.ca/

On Friday, 8 March 2013 at 03:37:41 UTC, Michel Fortin wrote:
> On 2013-03-07 18:31:34 +0000, Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> said:
>
>> On 2013-03-07 15:55, Kagamin wrote:
>> 
>>> I heard, llvm was written for C and x86. C++, exceptions and ARM pushed
>>> it beyond its limits and created a lot of kludge and redesigns.
>> 
>> Apple is betting everything on Clang/LLVM and they really need ARM for iOS. They have basically given up on GCC. Last time GCC got update was with Xcode 3.2.6, latest Xcode is 4.6, according to this:
>> 
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xcode#Toolchain_Versions
>
> In other words, Apple stopped using newer versions of GCC when the licence changed to GPLv3. I wonder where Clang/LLVM would be today if GCC was still available under GPLv2.

BSD people also are switching to LLVM. This is a very high quality tool in general, and even if you don't consider license issues, you'd find good reasons to use it.

On 2013-03-08 04:37, Michel Fortin wrote:

> In other words, Apple stopped using newer versions of GCC when the
> licence changed to GPLv3. I wonder where Clang/LLVM would be today if
> GCC was still available under GPLv2.

Aha, I didn't know that. Interesting ...

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Thursday, 7 March 2013 at 18:31:35 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2013-03-07 15:55, Kagamin wrote:
>
>> I heard, llvm was written for C and x86. C++, exceptions and ARM pushed
>> it beyond its limits and created a lot of kludge and redesigns.
>
> Apple is betting everything on Clang/LLVM and they really need ARM for iOS.

This means it's designed for apple/posix environment, i.e. llvm assumes exceptions can only be thrown manually and the only source of an exception are function calls, processor traps are assumed to result in posix signals.

On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 19:03 +0100, Kagamin wrote:
[…]
> According to distrowatch Ubuntu and Mint are more popular than Debian, and Ubuntu allows proprietary software like Opera browser and Nvidia drivers, so dmd won't be a problem too. Why Debian policies should be an issue?

As Jeff pointed out, Debian is the base for Ubuntu, Mint, and others so if you get in Debian you are in Ubuntu, Mint, etc. It is possible to get into Ubuntu, Mint, etc. separately but then you have many channels instead of just the one.

Debian also allows proprietary software such as NVIDIA drivers, it is just that they are in the non-free repository instead of the free repository. Non-free is not available by default in Debian but it is there. I use it all the time for NVIDIA drivers and some other stuff.

-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

Coventryday, 9 March 2013 at 09:08:09 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 19:03 +0100, Kagamin wrote:
> […]
>> According to distrowatch Ubuntu and Mint are more popular than Debian, and Ubuntu allows proprietary software like Opera browser and Nvidia drivers, so dmd won't be a problem too. Why Debian policies should be an issue?
>
> As Jeff pointed out, Debian is the base for Ubuntu, Mint, and others so
> if you get in Debian you are in Ubuntu, Mint, etc. It is possible to get
> into Ubuntu, Mint, etc. separately but then you have many channels
> instead of just the one.
>
> Debian also allows proprietary software such as NVIDIA drivers, it is
> just that they are in the non-free repository instead of the free
> repository. Non-free is not available by default in Debian but it is
> there. I use it all the time for NVIDIA drivers and some other stuff.

A similar thing exists in fedora and redhat country: rpmfusion.

It has free and non-free branches containing a handful of packages fed and rh won't include in the main repos for licence reasons. Many people use it for nvidia drivers

On Saturday, 9 March 2013 at 09:08:09 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> Debian also allows proprietary software such as NVIDIA drivers, it is
> just that they are in the non-free repository instead of the free
> repository. Non-free is not available by default in Debian but it is
> there. I use it all the time for NVIDIA drivers and some other stuff.

The support is clearly not as good. I got into an argument few month ago with some debian maintainers. The topic was that it was impossible to compile wine on a machine with the nvidia drivers. I came up with the issue, and even a fix, a receive basically a GTFO, we don't care about making a soft to run non free software using non free driver.

I took several month (maybe more than a year) for the issue to be solved, in a very similar manner to what I proposed in the first place. I'm not the only one that had similar issues.

Debian is not per se against non free, but some maintainers are, and it does matter.

On Sat, 2013-03-09 at 11:14 +0100, deadalnix wrote:
[…]
> Debian is not per se against non free, but some maintainers are, and it does matter.

This latter point is Debian's biggest problem, and actually it is worse than that in some cases. This is why having Debian maintainers maintaining D packages who are positively associated with D is important.

-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

"Daniel Murphy" <yebblies@nospamgmail.com> wrote in message news:kgumek$2tp4$1@digitalmars.com...
> "Zach the Mystic" <reachBUTMINUSTHISzach@gOOGLYmail.com> wrote in message news:pabfuaorrjbljxzrglbv@forum.dlang.org...
>>>
>>> Something like this https://github.com/yebblies/magicport2 ?
>>
>> Yes! I need to look it over more thoroughly, but I couldn't ask for a better beginning. Can I trust that you'll be a willing part of future discussions on this matter, even if only to play Devil's Advocate?
>
> More like a full-blown attempt than a beginning.  I started this a long time ago.
>
> There are three parts to it:
> - c++ parser/d printer, with lots of cheating and special cases
> - patches to the c++ source
> - patched version of dmd to build the result (no error on variable
> shadowing etc)
>
> It produces a 70000 line d file which appears to get through 3/7ths of semantic1.  Root needs to be ported, and a cleaner interface to the backend is needed to compile the glue layer.
>

Update: With the bulk of root converting or ported, and the glue layer stubbed out, I can build dmd from the converted source then lex and parse the source (+druntime headers) again.

The highlight was the dynamically resized struct in root/stringtable. Something went horribly wrong there.

On Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 10:38:02AM +0000, Russel Winder wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-03-09 at 11:14 +0100, deadalnix wrote:
> […]
> > Debian is not per se against non free, but some maintainers are, and it does matter.
> 
> This latter point is Debian's biggest problem, and actually it is worse than that in some cases. This is why having Debian maintainers maintaining D packages who are positively associated with D is important.
[...]

+1. I have upload privileges, and I'm willing to help with D packages.


T

-- 
Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power. -- Abraham Lincoln