On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:53:20 +, dsimcha wrote:
> A few weeks ago I mentioned that I was going to create some kind of
> forum for people to post candidate associative array implementations to
> replace the current, much-despised implementation as the new "builtin"
> AA for D. It's now up at ht
On 03/11/2009 23:18, Walter Bright wrote:
Yigal Chripun wrote:
Once Optlink is moved to C and than D, it could grow new features like
link-time optimizations.
It does open up a lot of possibilities.
One I think would be of big benefit is for two COMDATs with different
names, but the same cont
A few weeks ago I mentioned that I was going to create some kind of forum for
people to post candidate associative array implementations to replace the
current, much-despised implementation as the new "builtin" AA for D. It's now
up at http://dsource.org/projects/aa/wiki/WikiStart . SVN write acc
On Nov 5, 09 02:21, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
grauzone, el 4 de noviembre a las 17:23 me escribiste:
Walter Bright wrote:
Anyhow, during this process I stumbled upon what the problem was.
Optlink was apparently trying to account for some Borland obscure
extension to the OMF. Remove this, and it
Walter Bright wrote:
grauzone wrote:
And during all that time, GNU ld worked just fine, completely without
bugs! I had to add hacks to my code to make it linkable on Windows.
I've spent many hours trying to find workarounds for ld problems and
undocumented behaviors. The prime suspect in dmd
grauzone wrote:
And during all that time, GNU ld worked just fine, completely without
bugs! I had to add hacks to my code to make it linkable on Windows.
I've spent many hours trying to find workarounds for ld problems and
undocumented behaviors. The prime suspect in dmd not working on Snow
L
grauzone, el 4 de noviembre a las 20:23 me escribiste:
> Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> >grauzone, el 4 de noviembre a las 17:23 me escribiste:
> >>Walter Bright wrote:
> >>>Anyhow, during this process I stumbled upon what the problem was.
> >>>Optlink was apparently trying to account for some Borlan
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
grauzone, el 4 de noviembre a las 17:23 me escribiste:
Walter Bright wrote:
Anyhow, during this process I stumbled upon what the problem was.
Optlink was apparently trying to account for some Borland obscure
extension to the OMF. Remove this, and it works, although
pre
Bill Baxter, el 4 de noviembre a las 11:08 me escribiste:
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> > grauzone, el 4 de noviembre a las 17:23 me escribiste:
> >> Walter Bright wrote:
> >> >Anyhow, during this process I stumbled upon what the problem was.
> >> >Optlink was app
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> grauzone, el 4 de noviembre a las 17:23 me escribiste:
>> Walter Bright wrote:
>> >Anyhow, during this process I stumbled upon what the problem was.
>> >Optlink was apparently trying to account for some Borland obscure
>> >extension to t
grauzone, el 4 de noviembre a las 17:23 me escribiste:
> Walter Bright wrote:
> >Anyhow, during this process I stumbled upon what the problem was.
> >Optlink was apparently trying to account for some Borland obscure
> >extension to the OMF. Remove this, and it works, although
> >presumably it will
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 12:28 AM, Tim Matthews wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>
>> So is it any slower now with things not in ASM?
>>
>> --bb
>>
>
> You are not serious are you? The linker not the linked?
>
> If it's functionally more correct, easier to understand and easier to
> implement link time
Walter Bright wrote:
Anyhow, during this process I stumbled upon what the problem was.
Optlink was apparently trying to account for some Borland obscure
extension to the OMF. Remove this, and it works, although presumably it
will no longer link Borland object files (who cares!).
And during al
Tim Matthews Wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
> >
> > So is it any slower now with things not in ASM?
> >
> > --bb
> >
>
> You are not serious are you? The linker not the linked?
>
> If it's functionally more correct, easier to understand and easier to
> implement link time optimizations then how
Bill Baxter wrote:
So is it any slower now with things not in ASM?
--bb
You are not serious are you? The linker not the linked?
If it's functionally more correct, easier to understand and easier to
implement link time optimizations then how can anyone justify asm to c
transition (where as
15 matches
Mail list logo
