On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Iain Buclaw wrote: > == Quote from Jonathan M Davis (jmdavisp...@gmx.com)'s article > > On 2011-07-08 10:42, bioinfornatics wrote: > > > @sean > > > if you install ldc2 like: > > > $ cmake . -DD_VERSION:STRING=2 -DCONF_INST_DIR:PATH=/etc > > > $ make -j4 VERBOSE=2 > > > $ make -j4 install > > > > > > and try install druntime from > > > https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime.git I can't because > > > make file is only for dmd. What i try to said, yes we need 1 druntime so > > > for this reason druntime installer need support at least dmd, ldc, gdc. > > > But is not case currently. And for this reason d2 can't go to Fedora 16. > > > Because ldc2 use cmake for build 3 projects (ldc, druntime, phobos) > > > I need 3 installer separately. And ldc2 use a druntime fork! > > > > > > thanks for any answer :-) > > I believe that it's _expected_ that other compilers will use forks of > > druntime. They may have to make changes to druntime to work, and Sean > > doesn't > > want to have to maintain all of the differences for every compiler. Rather, > > druntime is the reference implementation intended for dmd, and other > > compiler > > maintainers do whatever they need to with their own version of it to get it > > work with their compiler. > > - Jonathan M Davis > > Exactly this, and the case is also vice versa with gdc. The druntime reference > library also does many things that are unreasonable and incompatible with gdc > (and > I assume ditto ldc too). > > One future plan on my list is the restructuring of core/stdc to be more ports > friendly (the source, not the installed files) - something to help push along > ARM > development for D2 with GDC, and hopefully for other archs to follow pursuit. > The > result being one elongated patch that won't be accepted upstream for sure. :~) > > Regards > Iain
This is one area that I disagree with Sean on. I think it's worth merging in as much as we can to the druntime code base. I'm not against having separate trees vended by each compiler, but I hope/expect those to be the lowest level details and not be detectably different from phobos or user code. Having core.stdc diverge, as just one example, is a recipe for having code that only works on top of one specific runtime, which is NOT what we want. I _do_ want druntime to support more compilers than dmd an dmore platforms than dmd supports. My 2 cents, Brad