Re: SDC-32bit
On Saturday, 2 August 2014 at 22:48:35 UTC, Shammah Chancellor wrote: Also, it looks by using your fiber based scheduler that you can naturally parallize compiling. Have you investigated that at all? Obviously, yes. But that is quite tricky to get a deterministic result due to compile time features.
Re: SDC-32bit
On Sunday, 3 August 2014 at 11:37:26 UTC, John Colvin wrote: Any idea what the significant bottlenecks are / what dmd is much faster at? No idea. I'd like to know, but ultimately, supporting more of D is more important than being fast right now.
Re: SDC-32bit
On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 09:02:23 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:39:15 + Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d-announce digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote: can't link it. GNU/Linux, x86, latest DMD from git. lib/libd.a(semantic.o): In function `_D1d3ast10expression56__T15UnaryExpressionTC1d3ast10expression13AstExpressionZ15UnaryExpression11__T6__ctorZ6__ctorMFS1d8location8LocationE1d3ast10expression7UnaryOpC1d3ast10expression13AstExpressionZC1d3ast10expression56__T15UnaryExpressionTC1d3ast10expression13AstExpressionZ15UnaryExpression': ... and so on LLVM 3.4.2, so prerequisites are ok. I got that error recently. It is an LLVM bug and upgrading LLVM should do the trick.
Re: DConf 2014: SDC, a D Compiler as a Library
On Saturday, 26 July 2014 at 00:10:50 UTC, Bill Baxter via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: In the YouTube interface, click on the pencil icon (Info Settings) and there's a place to set what frame to use as a thumbnail there. --bb I don't think it needs to be changed :D
Re: SDC-32bit
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 13:36:39 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote: Hello, I am happy to announce that my 32bit version of sdc compiles the whole testsuite including mixins. the only there are only 6 tests still failing 2 of them are dependent on size_t.siezof beeing 8. The otherer 4 have to do with execptoion handling. please check out the 32-branches on https://github.com/UplinkCoder/sdc and https://github.com/UplinkCoder/libd-llvm and https://github.com/UplinkCoder/libd I haven't yet updated the submodules so you have to fetch the 32-branch manually. and remember that this is experimental! please file issues on in my repo if your errors appear with both -m64 and -m32. if there are any questions please ask them. A bit late, but that is awesome. I need to go through all of this and am in holidays right now. #1 on the todo list when i come back.
Re: DConf 2014: SDC, a D Compiler as a Library
On Wednesday, 23 July 2014 at 16:07:44 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Last (but not least!) talk of DConf 2014. https://twitter.com/D_Programming/status/491977150694961152 https://www.facebook.com/dlang.org/posts/889844197695929 http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2bi79s/sdc_a_d_compiler_as_a_library/ Andrei Is the youtube capture intentional ?
Re: DConf 2014 Lightning Talks
On Monday, 21 July 2014 at 19:13:55 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Now available from youtube by default. http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2bbklj/dconf_2014_lightning_talks/ https://twitter.com/D_Programming/status/491299147015012352 https://www.facebook.com/dlang.org/posts/888753774471638 Andrei This video is private.
Re: DConf 2014: Adam D Ruppe's amazing slideless talk on x86 Bare Metal and Custom Runtime Programming
On Thursday, 17 July 2014 at 18:42:38 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: On Thursday, 17 July 2014 at 18:37:54 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Put that on reddit. -- Andrei I've tried a few times and it doesn't work.. the post appears to me, but is invisible to everyone else. I think reddit's silent spam filter dislikes the link. I can tell them to search the web for it though. You may have been shadow banned. You should contact some reddit admins.
Re: Lang.NEXT panel (dfix)
On Tuesday, 17 June 2014 at 15:45:55 UTC, Bruno Medeiros wrote: Dunno about DScanner, but if it's being used in DCD, I'd guess it can handle the whole language, or be fairly close to it. Similarly, there is also DParser2 from MonoD and the DDT parser (for the tool I'm working on) HAHAHAHAHAHA ! (The author of these actual tools will tell you the same). * Semantic analysis is needed. Otherwise as soon as someone uses templates or mixins the tool won't properly work I think there would be a lot of modifications that one can do without semantic analysis (or limited analysis). But that's why I asked for examples of dfix scenarios. Until you hit a static if. Which is always. Adding final to every method in certain classes could be done without semantic analysis. Reworking certain constructs to different constructs possibly as well (for example change foreach_reverse to just foreach usage) ditto.
Re: DMD 2.066 Alpha
On Friday, 13 June 2014 at 17:12:44 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 12:49:32 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote: Virtual by default will not change. Being able to negate the final: label is nice to have but not a must. Adding a keyword for that doesn't scale - it would mean we'd need to add one keyword to undo each label. To that end, I thought we were moving towards a more scalable solution: like !final or final!false or final(false), which could be nice for metaprogramming. -Steve Yes that was the decision, and with the advantage that the parameter can be computed at compile time.
Re: DMD 2.066 Alpha
On Friday, 13 June 2014 at 20:52:17 UTC, Kapps wrote:
On Friday, 13 June 2014 at 20:29:46 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Friday, 13 June 2014 at 17:12:44 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 12:49:32 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
Virtual by default will not change. Being able to negate the
final: label is nice to have but not a must. Adding a
keyword for that doesn't scale - it would mean we'd need to
add one keyword to undo each label.
To that end, I thought we were moving towards a more scalable
solution: like !final or final!false or final(false), which
could be nice for metaprogramming.
-Steve
Yes that was the decision, and with the advantage that the
parameter can be computed at compile time.
I honestly don't see this as a noticeable advantage, at least in
the case of final. Not to mention you could just use static
if(dovirtual) { result ~= final(false); }.
That is a plus for generic code, and that work for virtual.
So there is reason to use something specific for virtual.
Consistency is a plus in its own right. Coming up with ad hoc
solution to every problem is an absolutely terrible way to design
a programming language.
Re: Lang.NEXT panel
On Thursday, 12 June 2014 at 20:48:10 UTC, Dicebot wrote: On Thursday, 12 June 2014 at 17:52:59 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: I very much think the opposite, drawing from many years of hacking into large codebases. I'm completely with Rob here. On a large codebase, even the slightest manual or semi-manual change is painstaking to plan and execute, and almost always suffers of human errors. I got convinced a dfix tool would be a strategic component of D's offering going forward. It essentially comes down to persistent compiler-as-a-library issue :( Tools like dscanner can help with some of more simple transition cases but anything more complicated is likely to require full semantic analysis. If only we had such a tool !
Re: DMD 2.066 Alpha
On Wednesday, 11 June 2014 at 04:17:04 UTC, Andrew Edwards wrote: On 6/10/14, 10:01 PM, Brian Schott wrote: Please do not tag anything until we decide if virtual is a keyword in D. See: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org/pull/584 The branch will not be created until 30 June. I trust that this will be sorted out by then. I'll be there to test and bug report ! Thank for being the release lieutenant.
Re: Embarrassment of riches: another talk came online today
On Tuesday, 10 June 2014 at 16:30:31 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Leverage - my talk at Lang.NEXT. http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/27sp6r/langnext_2014_leverage_by_andrei_alexandrescu/ https://news.ycombinator.com/newest https://twitter.com/D_Programming/status/476400279160885248 https://www.facebook.com/dlang.org/posts/863665863647096 Andrei I think you explanation of the talking address of a function is quite goofy, and the crowd at Land.NEXT probably knows it. C and C++ are literally the only languages (with D) that have this idiotic notion of an address of a function. Even the assembly code it compiler to do not !
Re: Interview at Lang.NEXT
On Wednesday, 4 June 2014 at 06:19:05 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/27911b/conversation_with_andrei_alexandrescu_all_things/ Andrei OK I noticed that I messed up in answering. I was saying that you 2 seems to be confused between LLVM and clang.
Re: Interview at Lang.NEXT
On Wednesday, 4 June 2014 at 22:02:37 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: Yeah, I'm generally against it... but I have a weird view of typing. The way I see it, you should go either strong and static or dynamic and weak - I hate the middle ground. So, in my view: Best (like D): string a = 10; int b = 20; a + b; // compile time error: cannot do string + int Sometimes ok (my jsvar/script language also PHP and some others): var a = 10; var b = 20; a + b; // 30 Blargh (javascript): var a = 10; var b = 20; a + b; // 1020 Hatred: var a = 10; var b = 20; a + b; // throws an exception at run time Yup, you choose the right tradeoff. I wish std.json has something in the same style as our jsvar. The D one is best because it draws your attention to something that is imperfect immediately and reliably via a compilation error. Then you can solve it with to!int or whatever easily. The weak+dynamic is passable to me because it actually mostly works. The operator you choose coerces the arguments and gives something basically usable. I'd be ok if it threw an exception in the case of a string that cannot be sanely converted to int, but if it can be made to work, just do it. We all have to handle JSON or XML or some other thing like that at some point. When it come to these, having variant typing is huge for ease of use.
Re: DConf 2014 Day 1 Talk 2
On Tuesday, 3 June 2014 at 16:43:32 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: https://news.ycombinator.com/newest http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/277k5c/dconf_2014_day_1_talk_2_templates_in_the_wild_a/ Andrei I seems that both of you are quite confused between clang and LLVM.
Re: Scott Meyers' DConf 2014 keynote The Last Thing D Needs
On Thursday, 29 May 2014 at 19:06:15 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
Static if is certainly NOT an attribute, it doesn't make any
sense.
Well... it sorta does. static if does not introduce a new
scope, even with {}, and this only happens with attributes.
-Steve
in which case
static if(cond) {
immutable:
}
int x;
should not create x as immutable if cond is true. The current
behavior is not consistent with attribute either.
Re: Adam Simpkins replaces Manu Evans as speaker for DConf 2014
On Wednesday, 14 May 2014 at 19:33:36 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Sadly Manu couldn't make the trip to DConf this year. But fear not - Adam Simpkins will replace him as a speaker. Adam is a senior engineer at Facebook and will discuss opportunities and challenges using D at Facebook. http://dconf.org/2014/talks/simpkins.html Andrei O, Manu :( Well I have some idea of what Adam is going to say. He is a good speaker, so that should be fun and interesting. I'm quite disappointed that i won't meet Manu. Opportunities to meet other D devs are rare.
