On Sunday, 27 June 2021 at 08:41:27 UTC, kinke wrote:

Actually my understanding is that it's part of the ABI:

Source: Itanium ABI, 2.6.2 VTT Order

Regarding replacing D's ABI with C++, it might be possible today, but:

• It takes someone to care about it and want it;
• It's going to be a lot of work, so it should come with lots of benefit - I don't see much as of now;
• It locks us in a position where we depend on an external committee / implementation to define our ABI.

In any case, if you feel like it's worth it @Ola, you could start to look into what it takes (druntime/dmd wise) and start to submit PR. For dlang devs questions, I recommend to use the dlang slack.

On Sunday, 27 June 2021 at 23:20:38 UTC, Mathias LANG wrote:

Well, that could be an issue, but it is not likely to change fast or frequently so I don't think it is a high risk approach.

There is no point unless there is consensus. You first need to get consensus otherwise it is means throwing time into the garbage bin.

I don't have much time for chat, I prefer async communication.

On Monday, 28 June 2021 at 06:13:06 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:

Slack isn't like our IRC or Discord channels. It's more async like the forums.

On Monday, 28 June 2021 at 06:25:39 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

Thanks for the info, I might look into Slack if it doesn't require me to install anything. If it is an official channel you might consider adding it to the community menu or at least:

https://wiki.dlang.org/Get_involved

On Monday, 28 June 2021 at 06:13:06 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:

The issue is twofold: it requires us to follow upstream changes (the case you are thinking of), but also provides us from making non backward-compatible downstream changes (meaning we can't change it as we see fit if we realize there is potential for optimization).

Waiting on "consensus" is an easy way to avoid doing any kind of work :)
I'm fairly sure most large achievements that have been undertaken by people in this community (that were not W&A) have been done without their (W&A's) blessing. People just went ahead and did it. But obviously those people cared more about getting things done than spending time discussing it on the forums.

On Monday, 28 June 2021 at 07:44:25 UTC, Mathias LANG wrote:

Has this ever happened?

You don't need strict consensus, but you need at least one compiler team to agree that it is a worthwhile.

Was that a snide comment? Totally uncalled for, I certainly don't depend on anyones blessing to play with my own fork, but it does not affect anything outside it.

Making a PR for a repo without acceptance is utterly pointless and a waste of effort. Nobody should do it. They will just end up feeling miserable about what they could instead have spent their time on (including kids and family).

I am 100% confident that there has been a massive waste of effort in the D history that is due to a lack of coordination. Ranging from libraries that went nowhere to PRs that dried up and died.

Individual PRs won't fix the whole. The whole can only be fixed with a plan. To get to a place where you can plan you need to form a vision. To form a vision you need to work towards consensus.

You cannot fix poor organization with PRs. The PR-demanding crowd is off the rails irrational. Cut down on the excuses, start planning!

(What large achievements are you speaking of, by the way?)