On Friday, 20 February 2015 at 17:49:22 UTC, ponce wrote:
On Friday, 20 February 2015 at 15:26:02 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
However, if you make the context current in the GC thread
that's cleaning up, then you should be fine. There's nothing
wrong with having the same context current in multip
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 17:49:21 +, ponce wrote:
> On Friday, 20 February 2015 at 15:26:02 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
>>
>> However, if you make the context current in the GC thread that's
>> cleaning up, then you should be fine. There's nothing wrong with having
>> the same context current in multip
On Friday, 20 February 2015 at 17:49:22 UTC, ponce wrote:
Really such ressources should not be freed by the GC, and I
with it would not call destructors at all.
s/with/wish
On Friday, 20 February 2015 at 15:26:02 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
However, if you make the context current in the GC thread
that's cleaning up, then you should be fine. There's nothing
wrong with having the same context current in multiple threads
as long as you don't access it concurrently.
On Friday, 20 February 2015 at 13:44:04 UTC, ponce wrote:
On Friday, 20 February 2015 at 13:04:51 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Friday, 20 February 2015 at 09:57:48 UTC,
francesco.cattoglio wrote:
(e.g: if the GC calls any OpenGL function, you get a "nice"
crash since OpenGL is not multithread-awa
On Friday, 20 February 2015 at 13:44:04 UTC, ponce wrote:
On Friday, 20 February 2015 at 13:04:51 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Friday, 20 February 2015 at 09:57:48 UTC,
francesco.cattoglio wrote:
(e.g: if the GC calls any OpenGL function, you get a "nice"
crash since OpenGL is not multithread-awa
On Friday, 20 February 2015 at 13:04:51 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Friday, 20 February 2015 at 09:57:48 UTC,
francesco.cattoglio wrote:
(e.g: if the GC calls any OpenGL function, you get a "nice"
crash since OpenGL is not multithread-aware by default).
Really? I don't see this in my projects.
On Friday, 20 February 2015 at 09:57:48 UTC, francesco.cattoglio
wrote:
(e.g: if the GC calls any OpenGL function, you get a "nice"
crash since OpenGL is not multithread-aware by default).
Really? I don't see this in my projects. The GC stops the world,
so there shouldn't be any races.
On Thursday, 19 February 2015 at 02:08:39 UTC, Will Cassella
wrote:
Thanks for the replies, everyone!
I think I'll try my hand at writing bindings for my existing
game engine, as Grøstad suggested - that way I can gradually
transition the codebase to D if I like what I see.
My 2 cents would
On 19 February 2015 at 12:08, Will Cassella via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> Thanks for the replies, everyone!
>
> I think I'll try my hand at writing bindings for my existing game engine, as
> Grøstad suggested - that way I can gradually transition the codebase to D if
> I like what I see.
I've used D
Thanks for the replies, everyone!
I think I'll try my hand at writing bindings for my existing game
engine, as Grøstad suggested - that way I can gradually
transition the codebase to D if I like what I see.
On Wednesday, 18 February 2015 at 20:48:07 UTC, ketmar wrote:
as for some of your answer... using DMD from command line is
dead easy
both on GNU/Linux and on windows. you may miss visual studio
integration
and debugging, though.
Actually, you can have both. Apparently the Windows installer fo
On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 21:24:42 +, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 18 February 2015 at 20:48, ketmar via Digitalmars-d
> wrote:
>> GDC compiler is able to produce ARM code (and maybe LDC too, i don't
>> know),
>
> GDC and LDC are able to produce any code. It's the runtime that may
>
On 18 February 2015 at 20:48, ketmar via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> GDC compiler is able to produce ARM code (and maybe LDC too, i don't
> know),
GDC and LDC are able to produce any code. It's the runtime that may
just need extra porting love. :)
Iain.
On Wednesday, 18 February 2015 at 20:29:34 UTC, Will Cassella
wrote:
Hi,
I have been working on a neat little game engine in C++ for the
past year or so, and while C++ has served me well in the past,
there are some points where its just awful to write.
Maybe you should consider creating D-bi
On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 20:29:33 +, Will Cassella wrote:
> Anyway, if anyone here can give me advice on whether I should transition
> or not, I'd appreciate it.
do you really expecting the answer "no, stay with C++" in newsgroup that
is dedicated to D language? ;-)
as for some of your answer...
Hi,
I have been working on a neat little game engine in C++ for the
past year or so, and while C++ has served me well in the past,
there are some points where its just awful to write. While I
certainly can't call myself a master of C++, there's very little
about the language that I am not fam
17 matches
Mail list logo
