On digitalmars.D a patch was released that adds to the assert capability.  I'd love to see this added to the gdc tree.  Is there a policy about accepting patches into gdc that aren't accepted to the digitalmars D compiler but don't break the DStress tests?

Gordon James Miller wrote:

> On digitalmars.D a patch was released that adds to the assert capability.  I'd love to see this added to the gdc tree.  Is there a policy about accepting patches into gdc that aren't accepted to the digitalmars D compiler but don't break the DStress tests?

There are several such patches "accepted" already, such as fixing
the long lasting bug of DMD logging errors to stdout (not stderr)

I've listed the differences at http://www.algonet.se/~afb/d/diffs/
dmd-0.110-gdc-0.10.diff
dmd-0.121-gdc-0.11.diff
dmd-0.125-gdc-0.12.diff
dmd-0.126-gdc-0.13.diff
dmd-0.127-gdc-0.14.diff
dmd-0.128-gdc-0.15.diff
dmd-0.137-gdc-0.16.diff
dmd-0.140-gdc-0.17.diff

But David is the one who decides what goes into the GDC releases.
Another thing that DMD refuses to fix is the version(Unix) stuff.

--anders

In article <drv36b$2a8g$1@digitaldaemon.com>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= says...
>
>Gordon James Miller wrote:
>
>> On digitalmars.D a patch was released that adds to the assert capability.  I'd love to see this added to the gdc tree.  Is there a policy about accepting patches into gdc that aren't accepted to the digitalmars D compiler but don't break the DStress tests?
>
>There are several such patches "accepted" already, such as fixing the long lasting bug of DMD logging errors to stdout (not stderr)
>
>I've listed the differences at http://www.algonet.se/~afb/d/diffs/
>dmd-0.110-gdc-0.10.diff
>dmd-0.121-gdc-0.11.diff
>dmd-0.125-gdc-0.12.diff
>dmd-0.126-gdc-0.13.diff
>dmd-0.127-gdc-0.14.diff
>dmd-0.128-gdc-0.15.diff
>dmd-0.137-gdc-0.16.diff
>dmd-0.140-gdc-0.17.diff
>
>But David is the one who decides what goes into the GDC releases. Another thing that DMD refuses to fix is the version(Unix) stuff.
>
>--anders

As the author of the assert extension, I'd encourage it _not_ to go into gdc unless it's accepted for dmd.  The core language shouldn't drift apart between the two.  I wrote it on top of gdc because it's what I use and because I'm fairly sure not all of the source for dmd is available for someone like me to create a useable patch on top of.

Of course, I won't block the patch going into gdc, but I think it'd be a mistake.

Later,
Brad

Brad wrote:

> As the author of the assert extension, I'd encourage it _not_ to go into gdc
> unless it's accepted for dmd.  The core language shouldn't drift apart between
> the two.  I wrote it on top of gdc because it's what I use and because I'm
> fairly sure not all of the source for dmd is available for someone like me to
> create a useable patch on top of.

No, I thought about it some more and probably will not include it...
(for reasons that you mention, and for the "less surprise" factor)

So it'll just go on the shelf, with the other useful D additions. :-(

--anders