On 25 August 2015 at 23:25, rsw0x via Digitalmars-d-announce < digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 25 August 2015 at 21:14:39 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: > >> On 25 August 2015 at 22:42, NVolcz via Digitalmars-d-announce < >> digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote: >> >> [...] >>> >> I don't think this would work as well with the less active compilers. >> Partly because (gdc) only really goes through a major overhaul/change once >> every six months, depending on how long the next release of DMD has been in >> development. Also the whole process is less driven by dealing with bug >> reports and more driven by feature/optimization topics that I'm sure would >> fly over most people's heads. >> >> [...] >> > > The work done on GDC is well appreciated, GDC's codebase is much cleaner > now than it was before the refactoring. > True, and it will only get more cleaner as each section is rewritten. But no one personally congratulates you on refactoring code (I have been spearheading a push to remove all dmd-backend-isms from gdc. It took about 3 months work to make expression (toElem) codegen to be stateless, and remove the dmd-specific 'backend IR state' (IRState) struct from the codebase. And that is barely 1/8 of what needs to be done to prepare the move to 2.067) http://wiki.dlang.org/GDC/CurrentReleaseTasks