[D-runtime] Why does druntime us .di files instead of .d?

Jonathan M Davis jmdavisProg at gmx.com
Mon Jul 25 00:10:14 PDT 2011

On Monday 25 July 2011 09:00:45 Don Clugston wrote:
> On 25 July 2011 07:48, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday 24 July 2011 22:02:08 Sean Kelly wrote:
> >> In essence, the fix would be to have every function that is called by
> >> compiler-generated code be exposed by object.di.  I suspect that this
> >> would expose a good part of the now hidden compiler runtime code to
> >> the user, which not every compiler writer may like doing.  Which
> >> raises an interesting point.  Should CTFE support be consistent
> >> across compilers? I'd be inclined to say so, but this appears to have
> >> interesting implications in terms of how code generation occurs
> >> regarding language features (array operations in particular).
> > 
> > From the user's perspective, the fact that you can't iterate over a
> > string with CTFE is a big problem (
> > http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3512 ) regardless of what
> > the reasons for it might be. It's hugely limiting.
> It's a trivial issue. Don't worry about it. It'll be fixed in the next
> release. The issue Sean raises about array operations is interesting. I
> think DMD currently does array operations far too early; they probably
> shouldn't be converted into function calls until all semantic passes
> have completed.

That's good to hear. As I said, I don't really understand all of the issues 
here, since I'm not familiar enough with the compiler and druntime and this 
level, but it _is_ an issue that needs to be addressed. If it's an easy fix, 
all the better.

- Jonathan M Davis

More information about the D-runtime mailing list