RFC: Move runtime hook definitions to a .di file in druntime

Johannes Pfau via D.gnu d.gnu at puremagic.com
Sat Oct 11 10:49:08 PDT 2014

Am Sat, 11 Oct 2014 17:37:20 +0000
schrieb "Kevin Lamonte" <kevindotlamnodotonte at gmail.com>:

> On Saturday, 11 October 2014 at 06:59:33 UTC, Mike wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > In my continued, though stalled, effort to try and make minimal 
> > runtime for embedded systems, I've tried to find a way for 
> > users to know at compile-time if a feature of the runtime is 
> > supported or not, and more importantly, if they are explicitly 
> > or implicitly using an unsupported feature.
> I have started work myself on a D kernel (using gdc based on 
> 2.065 as compiler) and am going through the process of figuring 
> out how the D runtime works.  I have looked at XOMB and Adam 
> Ruppe's minimal-d, and saw the presentation online on running D 
> on ARM.
> I can boot and call D functions, but most of the D language 
> remains unavailable.  I am locating the various dependencies of 
> object.d(i) now, and hope to be able to soon be able to at least 
> complete a link with D code that has structs and enums.  I am 
> currently using 2.065 druntime, adding only those bits of 
> object.d that the compiler is directly referencing, and 
> versioning my changes with version(BareBones).
> Is your work online somewhere?  Would it be OK if I took a peek?  
> Mine just started (seriously, it is just hello world) over at:  
> https://github.com/klamonte/cycle
> I would really like a micro-runtime that supports the D dialect 
> minus GC, Threads, synchronization, OS APIs, and i386/amd64 
> arch-specific things like atomic operations.  So far (crossing 
> fingers) it seems like such a thing is only about 5-10 kloc.

You could also have a look at

Right now it's just an experiment and I don't know if anything will be

More information about the D.gnu mailing list