On 5 October 2012 11:35, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>> On 5 October 2012 01:06, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>>> On Thu, 4 Oct 2012, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>>
The only patches to gcc proper are documentation-related and adding
the D frontend /
On Fri, 5 Oct 2012, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> Would the best approach be to move all handle_* functions and any
> helper functions into a new source file that can be shared between
> frontends, and define two new frontend hooks,
> LANG_HOOK_ATTRIBUTE_TABLE and LANG_HOOK_FORMAT_ATTRIBUTE_TABLE ?
I don'
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> On 5 October 2012 01:06, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Oct 2012, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>
>>> The only patches to gcc proper are documentation-related and adding
>>> the D frontend / libphobos to configure and make files. I would have
>>>
On 5 October 2012 01:06, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2012, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>
>> The only patches to gcc proper are documentation-related and adding
>> the D frontend / libphobos to configure and make files. I would have
>> thought that these would typically only be included with the
On Thu, 4 Oct 2012, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> The only patches to gcc proper are documentation-related and adding
> the D frontend / libphobos to configure and make files. I would have
> thought that these would typically only be included with the actual
> front-end?
Looking back at my previous revie
On Thu, 4 Oct 2012, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> I would like to get a bump on this.
>
> It's been a while, and there have been quite a number of changes since
> the initial post that address many of the issues raised. Rather than
> reposting patches, someone mentioned attaching changelog, well, here
>
On 4 October 2012 16:51, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Oct 4, 2012, at 6:06 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>> I would like to get a bump on this.
>>
>> It's been a while, and there have been quite a number of changes since
>> the initial post that address many of the issues raised. Rather than
>> reposting pat
On Oct 4, 2012, at 6:06 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> I would like to get a bump on this.
>
> It's been a while, and there have been quite a number of changes since
> the initial post that address many of the issues raised. Rather than
> reposting patches, someone mentioned attaching changelog, well,
I would like to get a bump on this.
It's been a while, and there have been quite a number of changes since
the initial post that address many of the issues raised. Rather than
reposting patches, someone mentioned attaching changelog, well, here
it is.
Repository is still located here: https://gi
On 27 June 2012 19:17, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Jun 27, 2012, at 7:45 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>> I do have a question though, what is available for the transition of
>> development from git to svn? Other than a lot of ready and getting
>> used to the various switches and commands on my part.
>
> Why
On Jun 27, 2012, at 7:45 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> I do have a question though, what is available for the transition of
> development from git to svn? Other than a lot of ready and getting
> used to the various switches and commands on my part.
Why transition? Quite a few people around here use g
On Wed, 27 Jun 2012, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> OK, thanks. As the D frontend goes through a sometimes experimental
> development process between each release, I'd rather have it so that I
> merge the frontend into GDC as each release happens, instead of
> keeping in constant sync. This is how I handl
On 27 June 2012 16:47, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>
>> It's copied as including c-common.c / .h causes problems with a fair
>> number of references pulled in that need to be stubbed out - also,
>> some GCC function attributes that we use do not make any sense
On Wed, 27 Jun 2012, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> It's copied as including c-common.c / .h causes problems with a fair
> number of references pulled in that need to be stubbed out - also,
> some GCC function attributes that we use do not make any sense to have
> in D code (eg: gnu_inline, artificial, clea
On 19 June 2012 17:08, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>
> Many functions have no leading comment, and other GNU coding standard
> requirements are not followed either. Those should IMHO be fixed also,
> before this front end can be accepted.
>
To separate this from the other listed items. I am aware of
On 19 June 2012 17:20, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>
>> [PATCH 1/4]:
>> The D compiler frontend
>> - gcc/d
>
> Only selectively reviewed, but here are some comments:
>
>> diff -Naur gcc-4.8-20120617/gcc/d/asmstmt.cc gcc-4.8/gcc/d/asmstmt.cc
>> --- gcc-4.8-201
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 2:43 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> On 19 June 2012 17:08, Steven Bosscher
> wrote:
>> BTW you also include output.h in those two files, and I am about two
>> patches away from adding output.h to the list of headers that no front
>> end should ever include (a front end should n
On 19 June 2012 17:08, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I had a very quick look through the gdc_frontend patch. Below are a
> couple of comments on it:
>
>> http://www.gdcproject.org/files/gdc_frontend.patch.gz
>>
>> [PATCH 1/4]:
>> The D compiler frontend
>> - gcc/d
>
> How did you test this
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> http://www.gdcproject.org/files/gdc_testsuite.patch.gz
I have no comments on this patch for now.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> http://www.gdcproject.org/files/gdc_libphobos.patch.gz
Same comments as before about FSF postal addresses.
Although runtime libraries need not be assigned to the FSF (as per the GCC
Mission Statement), all significant files should still have copyright a
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> [PATCH 1/4]:
> The D compiler frontend
> - gcc/d
Only selectively reviewed, but here are some comments:
> diff -Naur gcc-4.8-20120617/gcc/d/asmstmt.cc gcc-4.8/gcc/d/asmstmt.cc
> --- gcc-4.8-20120617/gcc/d/asmstmt.cc 1970-01-01 01:00:00.0 +010
Hello,
I had a very quick look through the gdc_frontend patch. Below are a
couple of comments on it:
> http://www.gdcproject.org/files/gdc_frontend.patch.gz
>
> [PATCH 1/4]:
> The D compiler frontend
> - gcc/d
How did you test this? You include rtl.h/expr.h in d-builtins.c and
d-gcc-includes.h
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> These series of patches are for the D compiler frontend for inclusion into
> GCC.
>
> http://www.gdcproject.org/files/gdc_frontend.patch.gz
> http://www.gdcproject.org/files/gdc_libphobos.patch.gz
> http://www.gdcproject.org/files/gdc_testsuite.patch.gz
Hi,
Seems that I can't upload the files individually due to a size limit,
so I've put the files up on my site. Sorry for any initial noise.
Long story short:
So I have been working on this for quite some time, and now I feel it
is approaching some state of readiness for inclusion. Any feedback
24 matches
Mail list logo
