On 11 April 2017 at 14:11, Matthias Klumpp via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 22:36:39 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: >> >> On 10 April 2017 at 23:52, David Nadlinger via Digitalmars-d >> <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 20:43:06 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Master sports Phobos 2.071. Someone will have to see whether latter >>>> versions can be built using it. >>> >>> >>> >>> … and some weird Frankensteinian mix of several frontend versions, I take >>> it, maybe enough to build Phobos, but not necessarily compatible for user >>> code? Or did you port all the changes since 2.068.2 back to C++? >>> >>> — David >> >> >> All the regression fixes and none of the bugs! >> >> The current situation is that it should be link-compatible with current >> upstream/stable. Enough so that when someone has the time to test, it >> should just be a case switching the sources and building the D version. > > > First of all, thank you for your tremendous work on GDC! Fellow developers > and me were also pretty stunned by you maintaining a quite large amount of > different GDC versions in parallel without a huge team - that's some > impressive work! >
It was worse when we were using `#if D_GCC_VER == 33' macros to support all versions in the same branch. ;-) Having a really good CI helps too for when the periodic merges are done. > What is the thing that's blocking GDCs GCC inclusion? Just manpower? Also, > you were talking about "bugs" on several occasions, what's the thing with > that? Is it GCC or general Phobos bugs? It would probably be awesome to have > a summary blogpost or similar on the state of GDC, that could potentially > also attract volunteers. > Anyway, all a bit off-topic :-) Manpower has got something to do with it when you have two fast ships sailing and you have one foot in each. I think I only mentioned bugs once here, and was talking strictly about the D front-end, which deals with the parsing and semantic analysis of D sources. Every release there are listed new features, regressions fixed, etc. The regressions fixed have a higher precedent for me at least.