Hello!
Me bringing dub to Debian (and subsequently Ubuntu) has sparked
quite some interest in getting more D applications shipped in
Linux distributions.
Since I think D is a great language, I would welcome that - in
order to get more D code into distributions though, it would be
awesome to so
On Thursday, 21 April 2016 at 01:01:01 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
## How complete are the free compilers?
## Why is every D compiler shipping an own version of Phobos?
These two can be answered at once. LDC and GDC share the same
frontend code as DMD, but not the glue layer and backend (don't
On Thursday, 21 April 2016 at 01:01:01 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
The question here is also, which compiler should be the default
(which IMHO would be the most complete, most bug-free actively
maintained one ^^).
Is performance of the outputted code a criterium? Or the number
of supported
On Thursday, 21 April 2016 at 08:30:59 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Thursday, 21 April 2016 at 01:01:01 UTC, Matthias Klumpp
wrote:
## How complete are the free compilers?
## Why is every D compiler shipping an own version of Phobos?
The constraints on shipping a shared phobos between them:
ABI c
On Thursday, 21 April 2016 at 01:01:01 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
## Where should D source-code / D interfaces be put?
If I install a D library or source-only module as a
distribution package, where should the sources be put? So far,
I have seen:
* /usr/include/d
* /usr/include/dlang/
* /u
On Thursday, 21 April 2016 at 11:49:13 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote:
I'd love to have some extended compiler support (so you could
simply do gdc -use=libfoo:1.0.0 and this would pick up the
correct headers and linker flags). But as some DMD maintainers
are opposed to this idea it won't happen. You'
On Thursday, 21 April 2016 at 01:01:01 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
## How complete are the free compilers?
This is an important question, because we would need to know
whether we can expect D code to be compiled by any compiler, or
whether there are tradeoffs that must be made.
This question is
Hi, and thanks for your detailed explanations!
On Thursday, 21 April 2016 at 11:49:13 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote:
On Thursday, 21 April 2016 at 01:01:01 UTC, Matthias Klumpp
wrote:
[...]
You currently can't install druntime or phobos headers in this
directory, as each compiler will have slight
On Thursday, 21 April 2016 at 11:58:23 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
On Thursday, 21 April 2016 at 01:01:01 UTC, Matthias Klumpp
wrote:
[...]
Many D users are enthusiasts and push the compiler to its
limits, they are usually stuck with DMD (even DMD HEAD
sometimes) as it provides the latest fixes. It
On Thursday, 21 April 2016 at 09:07:57 UTC, Johan Engelen wrote:
On Thursday, 21 April 2016 at 01:01:01 UTC, Matthias Klumpp
wrote:
The question here is also, which compiler should be the
default (which IMHO would be the most complete, most bug-free
actively maintained one ^^).
Is performan
Am Thu, 21 Apr 2016 01:01:01 +
schrieb Matthias Klumpp :
> Hello!
> Me bringing dub to Debian (and subsequently Ubuntu) has sparked
> quite some interest in getting more D applications shipped in
> Linux distributions.
Having been in a similar situation years ago, I can share my
experience
Am Thu, 21 Apr 2016 15:34:35 +
schrieb Matthias Klumpp :
> That doesn't seem to be the case for LDC on Debian... It installs
> Phobos into /usr/include/d/std, which makes GDC go crazy as soon
> as LDC is installed too.
See also:
http://forum.dlang.org/post/mailman.1433.1460903305.26339.digi
> > You can only install headers for one library version with this
> > approach! A versioned approach is nicer
> > /usr/include/d/libfoo/1.0.0 but requires explicit compiler
> > support and it's unlikely this will happen (or explicit dub
> > support and you compile everything through dub).
>
Am Thu, 21 Apr 2016 15:34:35 +
schrieb Matthias Klumpp :
> Hi, and thanks for your detailed explanations!
You're welcome :-)
> On Thursday, 21 April 2016 at 11:49:13 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote:
> > On Thursday, 21 April 2016 at 01:01:01 UTC, Matthias Klumpp
> > wrote:
> >> [...]
> >
> > Y
On Thursday, 21 April 2016 at 15:41:17 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
Asgen is super-boring code ;-) Mainly because the task it
performs can be represented without using much black magic.
One interesting possibility with D is that you can test what
performance impact boundschecking has on your co
FYI: I don't want to comment here for now because Debian packaging is
very different from Arch packaging but I am keeping my eyes on the thread :)
On Friday, 22 April 2016 at 09:18:48 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
Looks like an LDC bug.
Or not. If template constraint doesn't match, the error should be
"template instance does not match template declaration".
On Friday, 22 April 2016 at 09:18:48 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
RMW operations on shared data are deprecated. The template
filter on atomicOp is a little different:
https://dlang.org/phobos/core_atomic.html#.atomicOp
Looks like an LDC bug.
Yes, this was indeed an LDC issue. We have our own
implemen
On 2016-04-21 03:01, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
## How complete are the free compilers?
This is an important question, because we would need to know whether we
can expect D code to be compiled by any compiler, or whether there are
tradeoffs that must be made.
This question is asking manly how comple
On 23 April 2016 at 21:35, Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On 2016-04-21 03:01, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
>
>> ## How complete are the free compilers?
>> This is an important question, because we would need to know whether we
>> can expect D code to be compiled by any compiler, or whether t
On 2016-04-24 15:20, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote:
To be fair, DMD doesn't implement the D2 specification either.
I didn't say it did ;). There's also the question "what is the
specification?". DMD, http://dlang.org/spec/spec.html, TDPL or a
combination of all of them.
--
/Jacob Car
21 matches
Mail list logo