On 13 January 2014 05:01, Manu turkey...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 January 2014 23:04, Iain Buclaw ibuc...@gdcproject.org wrote:
On 11 January 2014 00:24, Manu turkey...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 January 2014 06:59, Iain Buclaw ibuc...@gdcproject.org wrote:
On 10 January 2014 20:54, John Colvin
On Saturday, 11 January 2014 at 20:38:32 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
On 2014-01-10 23:16, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
Yes, but there's a difference between restrictive and
intrusive.
Using GDC doesn't intrude into anything -- the standard
libraries are
still Boost-licensed and simply
On 13 January 2014 08:07, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:
On Saturday, 11 January 2014 at 20:38:32 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2014-01-10 23:16, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
Yes, but there's a difference between restrictive and intrusive.
Using GDC doesn't
On 13/01/14 09:13, Iain Buclaw wrote:
Yah, but s/constraints/freedoms/. :-)
Quite. :-)
On 2014-01-13 09:07, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
Right, but they are not merely using -- they are redistributing (and
distributing derivative works). The GPL places certain constraints
here, I think we can all agree, but it can hardly be described as
intrusive; there's no obligation to base
On 2014-01-13 09:11, Iain Buclaw wrote:
Yes, however Walter has *ehem* ties with Microsoft, so he may have
access to information the Free Software community don't. ;)
It doesn't hurt to ask ;)
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On Monday, 13 January 2014 at 05:04:46 UTC, Manu wrote:
On 12 January 2014 00:35, Kai Nacke k...@redstar.de wrote:
On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 20:51:19 UTC, Dwhatever wrote:
This might have been brought up before but I couldn't find
any thread
about this. As things has progressed I wonder
On 13 January 2014 21:40, Kai Nacke k...@redstar.de wrote:
On Monday, 13 January 2014 at 05:04:46 UTC, Manu wrote:
On 12 January 2014 00:35, Kai Nacke k...@redstar.de wrote:
On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 20:51:19 UTC, Dwhatever wrote:
This might have been brought up before but I couldn't
On Monday, 13 January 2014 at 12:47:09 UTC, Manu wrote:
Oooohh yeah, this is exciting! :D
How about Win32? That's really important too, particularly
since DMD
doesn't support Win32 :/
You mean the 32 bit MSVC toolchain? SEH support is unlikely to
happen until that Borland patent expires.
On Monday, 13 January 2014 at 12:47:09 UTC, Manu wrote:
On 13 January 2014 21:40, Kai Nacke k...@redstar.de wrote:
On Monday, 13 January 2014 at 05:04:46 UTC, Manu wrote:
On 12 January 2014 00:35, Kai Nacke k...@redstar.de wrote:
On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 20:51:19 UTC, Dwhatever wrote:
On Monday, 13 January 2014 at 12:59:53 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Monday, 13 January 2014 at 12:47:09 UTC, Manu wrote:
On 13 January 2014 21:40, Kai Nacke k...@redstar.de wrote:
On Monday, 13 January 2014 at 05:04:46 UTC, Manu wrote:
On 12 January 2014 00:35, Kai Nacke k...@redstar.de
On Monday, 13 January 2014 at 08:07:42 UTC, Joseph Rushton
Wakeling wrote:
Right, but they are not merely using -- they are redistributing
(and distributing derivative works). The GPL places certain
constraints here, I think we can all agree, but it can hardly
be described as intrusive;
On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 20:51:19 UTC, Dwhatever wrote:
This might have been brought up before but I couldn't find any
thread about this. As things has progressed I wonder if Digital
Mars DMD should move over to use LLVM instead of its own code
generation and compiler framework.
As I
On 11 January 2014 23:04, Iain Buclaw ibuc...@gdcproject.org wrote:
On 11 January 2014 00:24, Manu turkey...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 January 2014 06:59, Iain Buclaw ibuc...@gdcproject.org wrote:
On 10 January 2014 20:54, John Colvin john.loughran.col...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Friday, 10
On 12 January 2014 00:35, Kai Nacke k...@redstar.de wrote:
On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 20:51:19 UTC, Dwhatever wrote:
This might have been brought up before but I couldn't find any thread
about this. As things has progressed I wonder if Digital Mars DMD should
move over to use LLVM instead
On Monday, 13 January 2014 at 05:04:46 UTC, Manu wrote:
On 12 January 2014 00:35, Kai Nacke k...@redstar.de wrote:
On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 20:51:19 UTC, Dwhatever wrote:
This might have been brought up before but I couldn't find
any thread
about this. As things has progressed I wonder
On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 21:00:24 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
Because Walter wouldn't be able to work on his current job any
longer if he looks into other compiler vendors source code.
IP laws are always a complicated issue.
Unless you have an actual explanation as to why this would be the
On 11 January 2014 00:24, Manu turkey...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 January 2014 06:59, Iain Buclaw ibuc...@gdcproject.org wrote:
On 10 January 2014 20:54, John Colvin john.loughran.col...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 20:51:19 UTC, Dwhatever wrote:
This might have been
On 11.01.2014 12:58, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 21:00:24 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
Because Walter wouldn't be able to work on his current job any longer
if he looks into other compiler vendors source code.
IP laws are always a complicated issue.
Unless you have an
On 11 January 2014 11:58, David Nadlinger c...@klickverbot.at wrote:
On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 21:00:24 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
Because Walter wouldn't be able to work on his current job any longer if
he looks into other compiler vendors source code.
IP laws are always a complicated
On Saturday, 11 January 2014 at 13:22:52 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
Remember when I told you that LLVM devs reverted commits made
by core
GCC developers because apparently there was no explicit
contribution by them to LLVM? :-)
I don't recall the details, but I don't see how this is relevant
On Saturday, 11 January 2014 at 13:16:40 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
He is the best person to explain such issues, I would say.
…which is precisely why I found it odd that you posted such an
unqualified umbrella statement here in the first place. ;)
No offense intended, but just speculating
On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 20:51:19 UTC, Dwhatever wrote:
This might have been brought up before but I couldn't find any
thread about this. As things has progressed I wonder if Digital
Mars DMD should move over to use LLVM instead of its own code
generation and compiler framework.
As I
Am Fri, 10 Jan 2014 13:44:52 -0800
schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org:
We plan to rig Facebook's build system to use dmd in debug mode and gdc
in release mode by default. Best of both worlds.
Andrei
I do that too, and part of the reason why I hacked something
Am 10.01.2014 21:56, schrieb John Colvin:
also, the digital mars backend is very fast, which is actually good
selling point for some use-cases where compilation speed is important.
I would also prefer to keep the digital mars backend for exactly that
reason. The GCC and LLVM backends are
On Saturday, 11 January 2014 at 13:04:13 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
As I understand, neither GCC nor LLVM are capable of producing
PDB.
Has Microsoft even release any documentation or code necessary
to
produce files in their PDB format?
There are plenty of PDB parsers available, so it should be
On 11 Jan 2014 16:55, Peter Alexander peter.alexander...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Saturday, 11 January 2014 at 13:04:13 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
As I understand, neither GCC nor LLVM are capable of producing PDB.
Has Microsoft even release any documentation or code necessary to
produce files in
On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 05:04:03 -0800, Iain Buclaw ibuc...@gdcproject.org
wrote:
On 11 January 2014 00:24, Manu turkey...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 January 2014 06:59, Iain Buclaw ibuc...@gdcproject.org wrote:
On 10 January 2014 20:54, John Colvin john.loughran.col...@gmail.com
wrote:
On
On 2014-01-10 23:16, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
Yes, but there's a difference between restrictive and intrusive.
Using GDC doesn't intrude into anything -- the standard libraries are
still Boost-licensed and simply _using_ a GPL'd piece of software
doesn't place any obligations on you.
On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 20:51:19 UTC, Dwhatever wrote:
This might have been brought up before but I couldn't find any
thread about this. As things has progressed I wonder if Digital
Mars DMD should move over to use LLVM instead of its own code
generation and compiler framework.
As I
On 10 January 2014 20:54, John Colvin john.loughran.col...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 20:51:19 UTC, Dwhatever wrote:
This might have been brought up before but I couldn't find any thread
about this. As things has progressed I wonder if Digital Mars DMD should
move over to
On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 20:54:06 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 20:51:19 UTC, Dwhatever wrote:
This might have been brought up before but I couldn't find any
thread about this. As things has progressed I wonder if
Digital Mars DMD should move over to use LLVM
On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 20:59:35 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
On 10 January 2014 20:54, John Colvin
john.loughran.col...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 20:51:19 UTC, Dwhatever wrote:
This might have been brought up before but I couldn't find
any thread
about this. As things
Am 10.01.2014 21:51, schrieb Dwhatever:
This might have been brought up before but I couldn't find any thread
about this. As things has progressed I wonder if Digital Mars DMD should
move over to use LLVM instead of its own code generation and compiler
framework.
As I see it with the small
On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 20:54:06 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 20:51:19 UTC, Dwhatever wrote:
This might have been brought up before but I couldn't find any
thread about this. As things has progressed I wonder if
Digital Mars DMD should move over to use LLVM
On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 21:00:47 UTC, Dwhatever wrote:
On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 20:54:06 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 20:51:19 UTC, Dwhatever wrote:
This might have been brought up before but I couldn't find
any thread about this. As things has progressed I
On 10 January 2014 21:02, Dwhatever n...@real.com wrote:
I see LLVM as a better choice because the license is less intrusive.
That is a rather ignorant assumption.
On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 21:12:21 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
On 10 January 2014 21:02, Dwhatever n...@real.com wrote:
I see LLVM as a better choice because the license is less
intrusive.
That is a rather ignorant assumption.
I've got some pretty strong sympathies with the gpl, but
On 1/10/14 12:56 PM, John Colvin wrote:
On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 20:54:06 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 20:51:19 UTC, Dwhatever wrote:
This might have been brought up before but I couldn't find any thread
about this. As things has progressed I wonder if Digital
On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 21:44:52 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
We plan to rig Facebook's build system to use dmd in debug mode
and gdc in release mode by default. Best of both worlds.
Andrei
Speaking of Facebook, I'd be interested in seeing how your lexer
generator ended up compared
On 10/01/14 22:24, John Colvin wrote:
I've got some pretty strong sympathies with the gpl, but really? In most
practical circumstances gpl is on the more restrictive end of common open-source
licences.
Yes, but there's a difference between restrictive and intrusive. Using GDC
doesn't intrude
Am 10.01.2014 22:24, schrieb John Colvin:
On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 21:12:21 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
On 10 January 2014 21:02, Dwhatever n...@real.com wrote:
I see LLVM as a better choice because the license is less intrusive.
That is a rather ignorant assumption.
I've got some pretty
On 1/10/14 1:58 PM, Brian Schott wrote:
On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 21:44:52 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
We plan to rig Facebook's build system to use dmd in debug mode and
gdc in release mode by default. Best of both worlds.
Andrei
Speaking of Facebook, I'd be interested in seeing how
On 11 January 2014 06:59, Iain Buclaw ibuc...@gdcproject.org wrote:
On 10 January 2014 20:54, John Colvin john.loughran.col...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Friday, 10 January 2014 at 20:51:19 UTC, Dwhatever wrote:
This might have been brought up before but I couldn't find any thread
about this.
44 matches
Mail list logo
