On 2012-07-09 22:43, Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
You mean there are actually people out there who believe documentation
can be correct, not to mention understandable, comprehensive and giving
the information you need?
You do know there are closed source libraries where you don't have an
option.
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 08:33:17 +0200, Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com wrote:
On 2012-07-09 22:43, Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
You mean there are actually people out there who believe documentation
can be correct, not to mention understandable, comprehensive and giving
the information you need?
You do
On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 13:26:53 +0200, Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com wrote:
On 2012-07-07 20:49, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/7/2012 3:46 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
Theoretically you should be able to just look at the documentation
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Yeah, I know how you feel about
On Monday, July 09, 2012 22:43:19 Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 13:26:53 +0200, Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com wrote:
On 2012-07-07 20:49, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/7/2012 3:46 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
Theoretically you should be able to just look at the documentation
On 7/7/2012 9:16 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
I still see pretty heinous backend problems crop up in
the bug reports for DMD.
Come on, it's pretty stable. Do you watch the bug reports for gcc? I remember a
guy recently ran some exhaustive code gen tests over C compilers, and dmc (the
same back end
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 23:47:45 -0700, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
On 7/7/2012 9:16 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
I still see pretty heinous backend problems crop up in
the bug reports for DMD.
Come on, it's pretty stable. Do you watch the bug reports for gcc? I
remember a guy
On 2012-07-07 20:49, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/7/2012 3:46 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
Theoretically you should be able to just look at the documentation
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Yeah, I know how you feel about documentation.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On 2012-07-08 06:16, Adam Wilson wrote:
As to compile speed, is LDC really *THAT* much slower than DMD so as to
cause C++ style speed issues? I thought one of the whole points of D is
that it doesn't need the epic numbers of passes and preprocessor that
C++ does precisely because that's what
On 7/7/2012 11:05 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Compilation is a huge bottleneck for any major C++ code base, and adding
hardware (distributing compilation etc) is survival, but definitely
doesn't scale to make the problem negligible.
In contrast, programmers have considerable control about
On Saturday, 7 July 2012 at 04:39:25 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 18:33:02 -0700, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
On 7/6/2012 4:50 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
My guess is that, unless something changes significantly, DMD
will remain a
niche tool; useful as a
On 2012-07-07 01:50, Adam Wilson wrote:
My guess is that, unless something changes significantly, DMD will
remain a niche tool; useful as a reference/research compiler, but for
actual work people will use LDC or GDC.
One think I really like about DMD is that is really fast at compiling.
It's
On 2012-07-07 03:17, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Walter refuses to look at the code for any other compiler. He has been well
served in the past by being able to say that he has never looked at the code
of another compiler when the lawyers come knocking. So, as I understand it,
anything that would
On 07-07-2012 12:45, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-07-07 01:50, Adam Wilson wrote:
My guess is that, unless something changes significantly, DMD will
remain a niche tool; useful as a reference/research compiler, but for
actual work people will use LDC or GDC.
One think I really like about
On 7/7/2012 8:38 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On a high-end 4-core x86, building LLVM and LDC can usually be
done in less than an hour, even when building them in optimized mode.
Building dmd on my Windows box takes 26 seconds, optimized, using a single core.
On 7/7/2012 3:46 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
Theoretically you should be able to just look at the documentation
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
On 07-07-2012 20:48, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/7/2012 8:38 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On a high-end 4-core x86, building LLVM and LDC can usually be
done in less than an hour, even when building them in optimized mode.
Building dmd on my Windows box takes 26 seconds, optimized, using a
On Saturday, July 07, 2012 20:59:23 Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
By the way, is it planned that DMD will be able to use Microsoft's
linker when compiling with COFF? Or is it too early to say at this
point? (It would simplify a lot of things; particularly, integration
with MSVC projects. Further,
On 7/7/2012 11:59 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
By the way, is it planned that DMD will be able to use Microsoft's linker when
compiling with COFF?
Yes, barring some horrible obstacle.
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 11:49:16 -0700, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
On 7/7/2012 3:46 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
Theoretically you should be able to just look at the documentation
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Unfortunately, I have to agree with this sentiment. I was
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 11:48:44 -0700, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
On 7/7/2012 8:38 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On a high-end 4-core x86, building LLVM and LDC can usually be
done in less than an hour, even when building them in optimized mode.
Building dmd on my
Adam Wilson:
Gentlemen, from a business prospective, compiler and/or project
build times are the least of your problems.
If DMD compiles quickly, I am able to compile one or more times
every day, so I'm able to test it frequently. Other people do the
same. The result is a better compiler
On 7/7/2012 4:08 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 11:48:44 -0700, Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com
wrote:
On 7/7/2012 8:38 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On a high-end 4-core x86, building LLVM and LDC can usually be
done in less than an hour, even when building them in
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 16:15:11 -0700, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
On 7/7/2012 4:08 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 11:48:44 -0700, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com
wrote:
On 7/7/2012 8:38 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On a high-end 4-core x86,
On 07/08/2012 01:28 AM, Adam Wilson wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 16:15:11 -0700, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
On 7/7/2012 4:08 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 11:48:44 -0700, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com
wrote:
On 7/7/2012 8:38 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen
On 7/7/2012 4:28 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
I imagine that it does, and honestly, I am not terribly concerned if DMD stays
with it's current backend because once LLVM gets SEH, im gone. But I do wonder
if DMD will become increasingly irrelevant as backends like GCC and LLVM
advance. And I am
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 16:34:53 -0700, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
On 7/7/2012 4:28 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
I imagine that it does, and honestly, I am not terribly concerned if
DMD stays
with it's current backend because once LLVM gets SEH, im gone. But I do
wonder
if DMD
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 16:38:27 -0700, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch wrote:
On 07/08/2012 01:28 AM, Adam Wilson wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 16:15:11 -0700, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
On 7/7/2012 4:08 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 11:48:44 -0700, Walter Bright
On Saturday, July 07, 2012 16:52:25 Adam Wilson wrote:
Agreed, but not many people have push rights to the website, which is
where I would start.
The lack of commit rights to d-programming-language.org doesn't stop you from
submitting pull requests. It just stops you from putting your edits
On Saturday, July 07, 2012 16:54:48 Adam Wilson wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 16:38:27 -0700, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch wrote:
The DMD backend is very fast in comparison to other backends.
LLVM is unlikely to catch up in speed, because it is well architectured
and more general.
Oh, I
On 07/08/2012 01:54 AM, Adam Wilson wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 16:38:27 -0700, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch wrote:
On 07/08/2012 01:28 AM, Adam Wilson wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 16:15:11 -0700, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
On 7/7/2012 4:08 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
On Sat,
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 17:22:27 -0700, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch wrote:
On 07/08/2012 01:54 AM, Adam Wilson wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 16:38:27 -0700, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch
wrote:
On 07/08/2012 01:28 AM, Adam Wilson wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 16:15:11 -0700, Walter Bright
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 17:04:35 -0700, Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com
wrote:
On Saturday, July 07, 2012 16:54:48 Adam Wilson wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 16:38:27 -0700, Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch
wrote:
The DMD backend is very fast in comparison to other backends.
LLVM is unlikely
On 08-07-2012 01:57, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Saturday, July 07, 2012 16:52:25 Adam Wilson wrote:
Agreed, but not many people have push rights to the website, which is
where I would start.
The lack of commit rights to d-programming-language.org doesn't stop you from
submitting pull
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 17:32:28 -0700, Alex Rønne Petersen a...@lycus.org
wrote:
On 08-07-2012 01:57, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Saturday, July 07, 2012 16:52:25 Adam Wilson wrote:
Agreed, but not many people have push rights to the website, which is
where I would start.
The lack of commit
On Sunday, July 08, 2012 02:32:28 Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 08-07-2012 01:57, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Saturday, July 07, 2012 16:52:25 Adam Wilson wrote:
Agreed, but not many people have push rights to the website, which is
where I would start.
The lack of commit rights to
On 08/07/12 01:52, Adam Wilson wrote:
I personally don't feel it is terribly wise for my business to by tied to the
Stallmanology of GCC
What's the problem here? The licence of the compiler places no restrictions on
the licence of the code you build with it.
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 17:44:09 -0700, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:
On 08/07/12 01:52, Adam Wilson wrote:
I personally don't feel it is terribly wise for my business to by tied
to the
Stallmanology of GCC
What's the problem here? The licence of the compiler
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 17:39:49 -0700, Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com
wrote:
On Sunday, July 08, 2012 02:32:28 Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 08-07-2012 01:57, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Saturday, July 07, 2012 16:52:25 Adam Wilson wrote:
Agreed, but not many people have push rights to
On 7/7/12 8:29 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
Sure they complain, but they would complain harder if the generated code
was sub-optimal or had bugs in it. And I imagine that multiple hour
build times are more the exception than rule even in C++, my
understanding is that all 50mloc of Windows can compile
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 19:33:22 -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
On 7/7/12 8:29 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
Sure they complain, but they would complain harder if the generated code
was sub-optimal or had bugs in it. And I imagine that multiple hour
build times are more
On 7/7/12 11:26 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 19:33:22 -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
On 7/7/12 8:29 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
Sure they complain, but they would complain harder if the generated code
was sub-optimal or had bugs in it. And I imagine
On Saturday, July 07, 2012 20:26:56 Adam Wilson wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 19:33:22 -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
On 7/7/12 8:29 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
Sure they complain, but they would complain harder if the generated code
was sub-optimal or had bugs
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 21:05:12 -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
On 7/7/12 11:26 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 19:33:22 -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
On 7/7/12 8:29 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
Sure they complain, but
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 21:13:35 -0700, Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com
wrote:
On Saturday, July 07, 2012 20:26:56 Adam Wilson wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 19:33:22 -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
On 7/7/12 8:29 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
Sure they complain, but
On 08-07-2012 06:44, Adam Wilson wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 21:13:35 -0700, Jonathan M Davis
jmdavisp...@gmx.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 07, 2012 20:26:56 Adam Wilson wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 19:33:22 -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
On 7/7/12 8:29 PM, Adam
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 21:58:04 -0700, Alex Rønne Petersen a...@lycus.org
wrote:
On 08-07-2012 06:44, Adam Wilson wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 21:13:35 -0700, Jonathan M Davis
jmdavisp...@gmx.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 07, 2012 20:26:56 Adam Wilson wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 19:33:22 -0700,
On 29.06.2012 11:27, Don Clugston wrote:
It's a good design, especially for optimisation tests. Although I can't
see an immediate application of this for D.
LDC (https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/) uses LLVM.
Kai
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 02:27:19 -0700, Don Clugston d...@nospam.com wrote:
On 29/06/12 08:04, bearophile wrote:
This is a very easy to read article about the design of LLVM:
http://www.drdobbs.com/architecture-and-design/the-design-of-llvm/240001128
That IR has a great effect on making it
Adam Wilson:
moving to LLVM would neatly solve an incredible number of
sticky points with the current backend,
I remember some small limits in the LLVM back-end, like not being
able to use zero bits to implement fixed-size zero length arrays.
And something regarding gotos in inline asm. I
On Saturday, July 07, 2012 02:10:49 bearophile wrote:
My guess is that, unless something changes significantly, DMD
will remain a niche tool; useful as a reference/research
compiler, but for actual work people will use LDC or GDC.
The D reference compiler can't be DMD forever.
Why not?
On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 17:59:36 -0700, Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com
wrote:
On Saturday, July 07, 2012 02:10:49 bearophile wrote:
My guess is that, unless something changes significantly, DMD
will remain a niche tool; useful as a reference/research
compiler, but for actual work people
On Friday, July 06, 2012 18:07:54 Adam Wilson wrote:
Walter can't use LLVM? Why not? He wouldn't have to work on LLVM and the
glue code is considered front-end. I admit I am not terribly well informed
of the legal issues here. But it seems to me that bolting the DMDFE onto a
different
On 7/6/2012 4:50 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
My guess is that, unless something changes significantly, DMD will remain a
niche tool; useful as a reference/research compiler, but for actual work people
will use LDC or GDC.
A more diverse ecosystem that supports D is only for the better.
On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 18:33:02 -0700, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
On 7/6/2012 4:50 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
My guess is that, unless something changes significantly, DMD will
remain a
niche tool; useful as a reference/research compiler, but for actual
work people
will use
On 7/6/2012 9:39 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
If this is what you want then I can be fine with it too. I just wanted to make
my position clear. This also means that use cases are going to need to be
clarified and a clear story crafted around the pro's and con's of each compiler
to help us make a
This is a very easy to read article about the design of LLVM:
http://www.drdobbs.com/architecture-and-design/the-design-of-llvm/240001128
It explains what the IR is:
The most important aspect of its design is the LLVM Intermediate
Representation (IR), which is the form it uses to represent
I implemented a compiler back end with LLVM some time ago. The IM helped
a lot in both, spotting errors in IM codegen and issues with target
codegen (e.g. because of some misconfiguration). You always have the
high level IM available as text and the unoptimized target assembler
usually is
On 29/06/12 08:04, bearophile wrote:
This is a very easy to read article about the design of LLVM:
http://www.drdobbs.com/architecture-and-design/the-design-of-llvm/240001128
That IR has a great effect on making it simpler to debug the compiler, I
think this is important (and I think it
58 matches
Mail list logo
