D2 Blockers?

dsimcha dsimcha at yahoo.com
Tue Aug 17 11:07:03 PDT 2010

== Quote from Iain Buclaw (ibuclaw at ubuntu.com)'s article
> Current developments that are taking priority first (in order) are:
> * Updating/Uploading packages in Debian and Ubuntu - as of writing, package
> is currently being built in Debian, with a predicted success across all 14
> supported architectures. >:-)
> * Port GDC to GCC-4.4 - nearly done, with one or two show-stoppers remaining
> with static chain decls and exprs.
> * Sort out the outstanding merges of D 1.062 and 1.063 - which somewhere
> along the line lost 64bit support. !!! - barely even started looking into it
> yet.
> Current blockers that need to be organised out (in my opinion) before D2 can
> be emerged are:
> * Integration into current GCC patches, which will require a regeneration of
> _all_ patches in the patch directory (even those I cannot account for as
> working).
> * Figuring out what internals need to be migrated from the current phobos2
> directory, what needs to keep.
> * A general consensus needs to be reached on how we should handle ASM
> version specifiers. Gnu_InlineAsmX86? D_InlineAsmX86? 64bit? Sort out
> calling conventions?
> * GDC Driver updates to tie the whole thing together - the easy bit. ;-)
> Anything I missed? Should I be pushing D2 further up the stack of my list of
> TODOs?
> Regards

It's tough to say where D2 support should be prioritized relative to packaging, D1
fixes, general infrastructure improvements, etc.  My biased opinion (since I
personally don't use D1 and have tons of code written for the latest versions of
D2) is that getting a basically-working D2.048 compiler is by far the highest
priority.  I personally (definitely NOT speaking for the rest of the community)
have no use whatsoever for a D compiler that doesn't work with code written for
DMD 2.048.  However, I'm sure D1 users would beg to differ.  I guess it really
comes down to the ratio of D1 users to D2 users.

More information about the D.gnu mailing list