Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
Don wrote:
John Reimer wrote:
Hello Johan,
As a user of D primarily and of the standard libraries secondly I see
this reluctance to solve the library situation as the single biggest
threat to D. It creates a division in the community and an uncertainty
of which libr
Spacen Jasset wrote:
For us Linux DMD users a bug should be raised against dmd so that Walter
will hopefully compile against an older glibc on future releases.
Yet when I do that the other half of the linux users have a problem.
Bill Baxter wrote:
It's not?
foreach(i; things) {
if (i==a) continue;
if (i==b) break;
if (i==d) return;
if (i==c) goto somewhere;
}
Those are all fairly common things to do from inside the 'dg' call.
The int is how the compiler distinguishes which case got you out of
t
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
druntime should certainly not become any bigger (in scope), as that would
defeat the purpose of separating the runtime from userspace in the first place.
The topic of common userspace functionality should be kept separate from the
topic of druntime.
Okay, how about a
"Spacen Jasset" wrote
> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> "Spacen Jasset" wrote
>>> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
You may have to statically link (which, of course, is not officially
supported by glibc, for very stupid reasons).
>>> I am not sure that the reasons are "stupid". It is similar,
Don wrote:
> John Reimer wrote:
>> Hello Johan,
>>
>>
>>> As a user of D primarily and of the standard libraries secondly I see
>>> this reluctance to solve the library situation as the single biggest
>>> threat to D. It creates a division in the community and an uncertainty
>>> of which library
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
"Spacen Jasset" wrote
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
You may have to statically link (which, of course, is not officially
supported by glibc, for very stupid reasons).
I am not sure that the reasons are "stupid". It is similar, for example to
kernel32.dll on windows, w
Denis Koroskin Wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:38:04 +0300, Jason House
> wrote:
>
> > Denis Koroskin Wrote:
> >
> >> I think believe we could take advantage of current state of both
> >> libraries in D2 - they are both incomplete and being redesigned to fit
> >> D2 better.
> >> We could re
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:38:04 +0300, Jason House
wrote:
Denis Koroskin Wrote:
I think believe we could take advantage of current state of both
libraries in D2 - they are both incomplete and being redesigned to fit
D2 better.
We could revisit both Tango and Phobos, and clean them up by remo
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:30:15 +0300, Ary Borenszweig
wrote:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
> BCS wrote:
>> Reply to Robert,
>>
>>> That doesn't look entirely useless, especially for optimization.
>>> Perhaps hard to read, but easier than reading the assembly output
;-P!
>>>
>>
>> ditto; now
10 matches
Mail list logo
