On 18 February 2016 at 11:53, tsbockman via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

On Thursday, 18 February 2016 at 10:48:46 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:

There seems to be a deterrence against backporting ie: 2.068 fixes to 2.066 for LDC/GDC. I have no idea why, I do it all the time. :-)

Part of the problem is just that no one else knows *which* fixes have been back-ported - there doesn't seem to be a list prominently displayed anywhere on the GDC home page.

This leaves people like myself to default to the assumption that the GDC/LDC front-end basically matches the DMD one of the same version.

Typically things that you no one will ever notice, nor care to. Anything that causes an ICE is a candidate for backporting. Features or changes in behaviour are not in that list of approved things to backport. For example, I typically raise (and Kai probably too) about half a dozen patches to DMD that fix bad or nonsensical frontend "lowering" in almost *every* release.

Saying that, I have in the past:

- Backported vector support from master when they first got accepted.

- Current 2.066FE uses C++ support from 2.068.

But these are, again, nothing that end users would ever be aware about.