Hi,

https://github.com/D-Programming-GDC/GDC/pull/99

This is now in master.  Outside of the D changelog the following command-line arguments have been added / deprecated.

  -fd-verbose: Deprecated in favour of --verbose (-v)
  -fd-vtls: Deprecated in favour of -ftransition=tls (equivalent to -transition=tls)
  -fd-vgc: Deprecated in favour of -ftransition=nogc (equivalent to -vgc)

  -femit-moduleinfo: Deprecated in favour of -fmoduleinfo, as the default is always ON.

  -ftransition=field: New switch, equivalent to -transition=field

I will try to also deprecate the other main culprits from bug#119 in the new 2.068 branch that has opened up.  @dub, and others that interact with GDC, please take note. ;-)

On Sunday, 6 March 2016 at 16:41:03 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> Hi,
>
> https://github.com/D-Programming-GDC/GDC/pull/99
>
> This is now in master.  Outside of the D changelog the following command-line arguments have been added / deprecated.
>
>   -fd-verbose: Deprecated in favour of --verbose (-v)
>   -fd-vtls: Deprecated in favour of -ftransition=tls (equivalent to -transition=tls)
>   -fd-vgc: Deprecated in favour of -ftransition=nogc (equivalent to -vgc)
>
>   -femit-moduleinfo: Deprecated in favour of -fmoduleinfo, as the default is always ON.
>
>   -ftransition=field: New switch, equivalent to -transition=field
>
> I will try to also deprecate the other main culprits from bug#119 in the new 2.068 branch that has opened up.  @dub, and others that interact with GDC, please take note. ;-)

Big Thumbs Up!

On Sunday, 6 March 2016 at 16:41:03 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> Hi,
>
> https://github.com/D-Programming-GDC/GDC/pull/99
>
> This is now in master.  Outside of the D changelog the following command-line arguments have been added / deprecated.

Wow, congrats. From your comments elsewhere I assumed there was a lot more work needed before this happened.

What's the future of GDC in terms of speed of releases.

On 23 March 2016 at 05:18, Jack Stouffer via D.gnu <d.gnu@puremagic.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, 6 March 2016 at 16:41:03 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> https://github.com/D-Programming-GDC/GDC/pull/99
>>
>> This is now in master.  Outside of the D changelog the following command-line arguments have been added / deprecated.
>>
>
> Wow, congrats. From your comments elsewhere I assumed there was a lot more work needed before this happened.
>
> What's the future of GDC in terms of speed of releases.
>

There is still a lot of work (about 10k lines of refactor-going-on-rewrite) needed for it.  It may support all 2.067 features, but it's still using the old codegen interface that has been removed in upstream. ;-)

On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 at 08:58:58 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> On 23 March 2016 at 05:18, Jack Stouffer via D.gnu <d.gnu@puremagic.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, 6 March 2016 at 16:41:03 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> https://github.com/D-Programming-GDC/GDC/pull/99
>>>
>>> This is now in master.  Outside of the D changelog the following command-line arguments have been added / deprecated.
>>>
>>
>> Wow, congrats. From your comments elsewhere I assumed there was a lot more work needed before this happened.
>>
>> What's the future of GDC in terms of speed of releases.
>>
>
> There is still a lot of work (about 10k lines of refactor-going-on-rewrite) needed for it.  It may support all 2.067 features, but it's still using the old codegen interface that has been removed in upstream. ;-)

So GDC seems to be dead. That's a pity.
No one from GDC's team wanna join LDC's one ?

On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 at 11:24:07 UTC, Temtaime wrote:
> So GDC seems to be dead. That's a pity.
> No one from GDC's team wanna join LDC's one ?

Either you have terrible reading comprehension or you're making a very unfunny joke.

On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 at 13:20:56 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
> On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 at 11:24:07 UTC, Temtaime wrote:
>> So GDC seems to be dead. That's a pity.
>> No one from GDC's team wanna join LDC's one ?
>
> Either you have terrible reading comprehension or you're making a very unfunny joke.

2.067 frontend is outdated, isn't it ? For instance i can't build my code with dmd < 2.069 due to tons of bugs in the frontend.
And when i discover new bugs, i have to write ugly workarounds, and i have to remove them when there's new version of frontend with bugfixes.
And yes, keeping them to support outdated frontend versions is a bad practice.

So in Q1 2016 GDC is only 2.067. And it isn't based on D frontend, so when it will be time to move to D frontend, the gap will raise. You see ?

On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 at 13:35:47 UTC, Temtaime wrote:
> On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 at 13:20:56 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 at 11:24:07 UTC, Temtaime wrote:
>>> So GDC seems to be dead. That's a pity.
>>> No one from GDC's team wanna join LDC's one ?
>>
>> Either you have terrible reading comprehension or you're making a very unfunny joke.
>
> 2.067 frontend is outdated, isn't it ? For instance i can't build my code with dmd < 2.069 due to tons of bugs in the frontend.
> And when i discover new bugs, i have to write ugly workarounds, and i have to remove them when there's new version of frontend with bugfixes.
> And yes, keeping them to support outdated frontend versions is a bad practice.
>
> So in Q1 2016 GDC is only 2.067. And it isn't based on D frontend, so when it will be time to move to D frontend, the gap will raise. You see ?

You changed the subject. We were taking about the status of the GDC project, and now you're talking about its obsolescence. These are two different things.

Considering the fact that GDC just merged a huge new update, no it's not "dead".

On 23 March 2016 at 14:35, Temtaime via D.gnu <d.gnu@puremagic.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 at 13:20:56 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 at 11:24:07 UTC, Temtaime wrote:
>>
>>> So GDC seems to be dead. That's a pity.
>>> No one from GDC's team wanna join LDC's one ?
>>>
>>
>> Either you have terrible reading comprehension or you're making a very unfunny joke.
>>
>
> 2.067 frontend is outdated, isn't it ? For instance i can't build my code
> with dmd < 2.069 due to tons of bugs in the frontend.
> And when i discover new bugs, i have to write ugly workarounds, and i have
> to remove them when there's new version of frontend with bugfixes.
> And yes, keeping them to support outdated frontend versions is a bad
> practice.
>
> So in Q1 2016 GDC is only 2.067. And it isn't based on D frontend, so when it will be time to move to D frontend, the gap will raise. You see ?
>

In all likelihood, we'd just jump from 2.068 to LATEST in one leap. Because as far as I'm concerned every release since 2.069 is a horribly broken release, and until upstream fixes their code, there's no chance of moving forward.

However the compiler implementation itself will remain being compatible with 2.068 features.  So there is no rush to bootstrap it, or to start cherry-picking bug fixes today.

On 2016-03-23 12:24, Temtaime via D.gnu wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 at 08:58:58 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>> On 23 March 2016 at 05:18, Jack Stouffer via D.gnu <d.gnu@puremagic.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, 6 March 2016 at 16:41:03 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/D-Programming-GDC/GDC/pull/99
>>>>
>>>> This is now in master.  Outside of the D changelog the following command-line arguments have been added / deprecated.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wow, congrats. From your comments elsewhere I assumed there was a lot more work needed before this happened.
>>>
>>> What's the future of GDC in terms of speed of releases.
>>>
>>
>> There is still a lot of work (about 10k lines of refactor-going-on-rewrite) needed for it.  It may support all 2.067 features, but it's still using the old codegen interface that has been removed in upstream. ;-)
>
> So GDC seems to be dead. That's a pity.
You must have a curious definition of 'dead'.

> No one from GDC's team wanna join LDC's one ?
Is LDC currently suffering from a lack of developers?