On Monday, 9 January 2017 at 13:42:01 UTC, Mike wrote:
On Sunday, 8 January 2017 at 22:14:36 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
1) -fno-rtti should be a flag that is honoured by the compiler.
The more I think about it the more I dislike the whole idea of
-fno-rtti. All I've ever wanted from the D comp
On Sunday, 8 January 2017 at 22:14:36 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
1) -fno-rtti should be a flag that is honoured by the compiler.
The more I think about it the more I dislike the whole idea of
-fno-rtti. All I've ever wanted from the D compiler is to not
put code in my binary that has not chanc
On 20 December 2016 at 12:24, Mike via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
> On Monday, 19 December 2016 at 19:53:06 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>
>> The compiler doesn't actually generate any code that peeks inside
>> TypeInfo. It only generates the reference to the right typeinfo to pass to
>> library ru
On Monday, 19 December 2016 at 19:53:06 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
The compiler doesn't actually generate any code that peeks
inside TypeInfo. It only generates the reference to the right
typeinfo to pass to library runtime functions - or on request
via typeid(). It doesn't actually care about
On 19 December 2016 at 12:41, Mike via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
> On Sunday, 18 December 2016 at 12:57:08 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>
>> On 18 December 2016 at 03:37, Mike via Digitalmars-d-announce
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sunday, 18 December 2016 at 00:04:54 UTC, sarn wrote:
>>>
I thought
On 19 December 2016 at 01:36, Mike via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
> On Sunday, 18 December 2016 at 12:57:08 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>
>> As a response to my last message in that thread, the changes for classinfo
>> generation is now ready to go in master.
>
>
> Ok, I'll give it a test in the ne
On Sunday, 18 December 2016 at 12:57:08 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
On 18 December 2016 at 03:37, Mike via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
On Sunday, 18 December 2016 at 00:04:54 UTC, sarn wrote:
I thought I'd write something up to help other people
experiment with this
stuff:
https://theartofmach
On Sunday, 18 December 2016 at 12:57:08 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
As a response to my last message in that thread, the changes
for classinfo generation is now ready to go in master.
Ok, I'll give it a test in the next week or so.
However I already have ideas for future implementation that is
n
On 18 December 2016 at 03:37, Mike via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
> On Sunday, 18 December 2016 at 00:04:54 UTC, sarn wrote:
>
>> I thought I'd write something up to help other people experiment with this
>> stuff:
>> https://theartofmachinery.com/2016/12/18/d_without_runtime.html
>
>
> Thanks
On Sunday, 18 December 2016 at 02:37:22 UTC, Mike wrote:
I abandoned D sometime ago largely because of
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14758 (but there were
other reasons), so your blog post is interesting to me. It is
unfortunate that we have to resort to such hackery, but its
nice
On Sunday, 18 December 2016 at 00:04:54 UTC, sarn wrote:
I thought I'd write something up to help other people
experiment with this stuff:
https://theartofmachinery.com/2016/12/18/d_without_runtime.html
Thanks for this.
I abandoned D sometime ago largely because of
https://issues.dlang.org/
On 18 December 2016 at 01:04, sarn via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
> As it stands, the -betterC flag is still immature and only removes a bit of
> the D runtime.
-betterC removes module info and module helpers, not the D runtime.
You will find it in gdc with the more appropriately named command
As it stands, the -betterC flag is still immature and only
removes a bit of the D runtime. I've been playing around a bit
to see what could be possible. To do that, I've had to do some
linker hacking to make code that's completely free of D runtime
dependencies.
I thought I'd write somethin
13 matches
Mail list logo
