On Friday, 12 November 2021 at 08:12:22 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
Maybe there are some metaprogramming advantages, but I cannot
think of any.
Well, one advantage might be that it could be easier to do escape
analysis of C code. Not really sure if there is a difference
compared to doing
On Thursday, 11 November 2021 at 02:03:22 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
I don't think ImportC is that much of a game changer (you can
already make C bindings with quite a small effort, and there
are tools to get you 90% there), but a broken/not working
ImportC will be a huge drawback to the
On Thursday, 11 November 2021 at 02:03:22 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
I don't think ImportC is that much of a game changer (you can
already make C bindings with quite a small effort, and there
are tools to get you 90% there), but a broken/not working
ImportC will be a huge drawback to th
On 11/10/21 12:38 PM, rempas wrote:
On Wednesday, 10 November 2021 at 15:04:35 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I'm using the downloaded LDC2 for aarch64.
But I'm not building tomld.c that you created, I'm building the
reduced example (that I posted).
How? What's the difference in your exam
On Wednesday, 10 November 2021 at 17:57:50 UTC, Imperatorn wrote:
Agreed. But, it must be quite seamless. But if we could get
there, yes 🌟
It should be able to compile medium to big libraries. Nobody
excepts it to be able to compile GIMP but it should be a able to
tomlc99 which is a little
On Wednesday, 10 November 2021 at 17:38:12 UTC, rempas wrote:
On Wednesday, 10 November 2021 at 15:04:35 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
[...]
How? What's the difference in your example? How you
preprocessed and compiled?
[...]
I did! I personally believe that ImportC is the last and on
On Wednesday, 10 November 2021 at 15:04:35 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
I'm using the downloaded LDC2 for aarch64.
But I'm not building tomld.c that you created, I'm building the
reduced example (that I posted).
How? What's the difference in your example? How you preprocessed
and compil
On Wednesday, 10 November 2021 at 15:06:26 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
It shouldn't.
Perhaps you mean that you get more errors if you fix that
situation? A compiler typically has phases where it can error
out. This means that it might not get to further errors (or
further errors are hap
On 11/10/21 1:31 AM, rempas wrote:
On Tuesday, 9 November 2021 at 19:34:44 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
What's happening here is that dmd seems to see `free` as function
rather than a pointer to a function.
changing `static void* (*ppmalloc)(size_t) = malloc;`
to `static void* (*ppmalloc)(size_t)
On 11/10/21 2:04 AM, rempas wrote:
On Tuesday, 9 November 2021 at 13:44:04 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
It seems like it should work. Figuring out the "lines" for things is
really difficult in this expanded format, even though I know why it
does that. I think importC should possibly allow
On Tuesday, 9 November 2021 at 13:44:04 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
It seems like it should work. Figuring out the "lines" for
things is really difficult in this expanded format, even though
I know why it does that. I think importC should possibly allow
printing of the actual source line
On Wednesday, 10 November 2021 at 06:38:58 UTC, rempas wrote:
On Tuesday, 9 November 2021 at 22:19:37 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
It rather tries to interpret the C code as D code.
It's not a full C compiler rather it's a shim in front of the
D frontend.
Therefore bugs like the above can happen if
On Tuesday, 9 November 2021 at 22:19:37 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
It rather tries to interpret the C code as D code.
It's not a full C compiler rather it's a shim in front of the D
frontend.
Therefore bugs like the above can happen if the compiler wasn't
aware that the function identifier was to
On Tuesday, 9 November 2021 at 19:34:44 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
What's happening here is that dmd seems to see `free` as
function rather than a pointer to a function.
changing `static void* (*ppmalloc)(size_t) = malloc;`
to `static void* (*ppmalloc)(size_t) = &malloc;`
may solve your issue.
On 11/9/21 5:19 PM, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Tuesday, 9 November 2021 at 21:03:20 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 11/9/21 3:05 PM, Stefan Koch wrote:
Yes it is valid C.
It is not valid D though.
The file is named `tomld.c`
The way importC works is, you pass a .c file to the compiler, and
On Tuesday, 9 November 2021 at 21:03:20 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On 11/9/21 3:05 PM, Stefan Koch wrote:
Yes it is valid C.
It is not valid D though.
The file is named `tomld.c`
The way importC works is, you pass a .c file to the compiler,
and it treats it as C.
-Steve
It rathe
On 11/9/21 3:05 PM, Stefan Koch wrote:
Yes it is valid C.
It is not valid D though.
The file is named `tomld.c`
The way importC works is, you pass a .c file to the compiler, and it
treats it as C.
-Steve
On Tuesday, 9 November 2021 at 19:53:48 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On 11/9/21 2:34 PM, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Tuesday, 9 November 2021 at 11:45:28 UTC, rempas wrote:
[...]
What's happening here is that dmd seems to see `free` as
function rather than a pointer to a function.
changing `s
On 11/9/21 2:34 PM, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Tuesday, 9 November 2021 at 11:45:28 UTC, rempas wrote:
```
toml.c(39): Error: cannot implicitly convert expression `malloc` of
type `extern (C) void*(ulong __size)` to `extern (C) void*
function(ulong)`
toml.c(40): Error: cannot implicitly convert ex
On Tuesday, 9 November 2021 at 11:45:28 UTC, rempas wrote:
```
toml.c(39): Error: cannot implicitly convert expression
`malloc` of type `extern (C) void*(ulong __size)` to `extern
(C) void* function(ulong)`
toml.c(40): Error: cannot implicitly convert expression `free`
of type `extern (C) voi
On 11/9/21 6:45 AM, rempas wrote:
So I'm trying to compile the [toml99](https://github.com/cktan/tomlc99)
C library with DMD using ImportC. I first preprocessed the file using
`cproc`. The reason I didn't used GCC is because it defines some symbols
specific to GCC so it will furthermore mess th
21 matches
Mail list logo
