Am Thu, 07 Mar 2013 19:53:29 +0400 schrieb Denis Shelomovskij <verylonglogin....@gmail.com>:
> 07.03.2013 14:28, Jacob Carlborg пишет: > > On 2013-03-07 11:12, Moritz Maxeiner wrote: > > > >> Sorry if this has been answered before/is common knowledge, but is > >> porting functions at a time to C wanted for optlink in general, or > >> only for finding segfaults? (e.g. are pull-requests for that > >> welcome) > > > > Yes, in general. I think the idea is to port the whole Optlink to C > > and then to D. It's easier to port from C to D than from assembly > > to D. This is because you can use a C version that doesn't use the > > runtime or standard library to get the generate assembly as close > > as possible to the original one. I think it was something like that. > > > > Didn't get. You don't have to use D with druntime. Just don't link it > and everything will be OK - you will just get "better C" (i.e. with D > structs and other good stuff). > That's a little bit oversimplified. Even a simple POD struct references the TypeInfo_Struct declaration in druntime. There's still some compiler work needed to really make D usable without druntime. (Think of issues like these: If you don't have druntime -> you don't have typeinfo -> no D style varargs -> no associative arrays; you can't even compare normal arrays (https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/blob/e47a00bff935c3f079bb567a6ec97663ba384487/src/rt/adi.d#L368))