== Quote from Brad Roberts (bra...@puremagic.com)'s article > On 1/23/2011 9:56 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote: > > == Quote from Brad Roberts (bra...@puremagic.com)'s article > >> On 1/22/2011 4:32 PM, Robert Clipsham wrote: > >>> On 22/01/11 23:58, bioinfornatics wrote: > >>>> They are something wrong with druntime management!!! > >>>> Why druntime do not support gdc or ldc2? > >>>> Its is very crap thing i hope druntime will add soon gdc support. We can > > send > >>>> ldc and gdc patch. > >>>> Thanks for all > >>>> > >>>> best regards > >>> > >>> I've been talking to you on IRC about this, but I'll reiterate it here for > >>> everyone elses benefit. Having support for each compiler in druntime is a bad > >>> idea. This is what druntime did initially when it was forked from tango. The > >>> trouble was that as the compiler got updated, the runtime needed to be > > updated > >>> too, and the compiler and runtime became out of sync very easily, and getting > >>> everything up to date again was a pain. > >>> > >>> The solution to this is to have each compiler maintain its own druntime > >>> compiler-specifics, and have the non-compiler-specific code in a main > > druntime > >>> repository - this way all that is needed is to copy/paste the compiler > > specific > >>> code into druntime. This works, as when the compiler is updated, so is the > >>> compiler-specific portion of druntime and nothing gets out of sync. > >>> > >>> Of course, a lot of druntime isn't compiler specific, for these parts patches > >>> should probably be applied. I'm not entirely sure where gdc and ldc are with > >>> respect to this kind of patch, I know they both have complete druntime > >>> implementations, but I'm sure if this kind of patch was made (preferably > >>> in > >>> smaller, individual patches for each feature/bug etc) it would be applied. > >>> > >>> Of course, this is just the situation as I see it, and from memory, the > > druntime > >>> folk will probably chime in and give the full story. > >>> > >> Personally, I'd like to see one common runtime, but to achieve that > >> requires > >> that the compiler/runtime interface be essentially the same between the > >> compilers. That's an achievable goal, but it has to actually be an agreed upon > >> goal. Today, both gdc and ldc's interface with the runtime don't match dmd's. > >> So, where do they differ today? Why? Can they evolve to a common interface? > >> I'll happily apply patches from anyone providing them that work to achieve that > >> goal. Please use bugzilla to submit them. > >> One implied part of this goal is that dmd is, while an important stake holder, > >> needs to play nice too. Changes need to go through a discussion round before > >> being made.. no unilateral changes. > >> Also, this discussion should probably drift over to the d- runt...@puremagic.com > >> mailing list.. at least the parts that are directly related to > >> accomplishing > > the > >> changes. > >> My 2 cents, > >> Brad > > > > I'm not sure where to find / subscribe to the mailing list, so I posted > > here: > > http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5478 > > > > Regards. > Lists: http://lists.puremagic.com
OK, thanks. I'll get signed up there. > I like the summary of problems, I dislike that it's more than one report per > bug. It makes dealing with them a royal pain. One issue per bug please. It's a follow-on from the report Thomas made back in 2007, as DMD's library calls have changed since. GDC haven't changed at all with the exception of one or two additions to the list for D2. Regards
