DMD 1.022 and 2.005 releases

Bruce Adams tortoise_74 at yeah.who.co.uk
Mon Oct 8 18:34:41 PDT 2007


Walter Bright Wrote:

> Bruce Adams wrote:
> > Walter Bright Wrote:
> >> A more practical approach is to recompile your C++ source using
> >> DMC++.
> > 
> > I doubt it is that practical. Though perhaps worth a try. gcc its
> > well integrated with my build system and I keep my code portable
> > between windows and linux. It sounds like I'm out of luck there :(. 
> > It was hard enough to persuade myself to try dmd when gdc didn't work
> > for me. I know gcc's interface backwards. Jumping to another vendor
> > (even you :-) is just a little step too far for me. Not to mention
> > having to swap gdb for ddbg or whatever it is. I might try porting
> > something simple as an exercise in improving the portability of some
> > code just to see what happens. As Captain Oates said, I may be some
> > time...
> > 
> > Bruce.
> 
> When gdc folds this in, then gdc/g++ should also work. I don't know what 
> other issues there are with gdc.

I started out trying to use gdc/cygwin and gave up. The general advice I was given was don't do it use dmd. Using gdc on windows puts me in a small minority (anyone else tried it, raise your hand now). Certainly my brief experince was that gdc is too broken on cygwin to use. In my first day of using D I found two compiler bugs one in DMD one in gdc. The one in DMD has a workaround the one in gdc was fatal but I note it has been fixed so I could try again. Finding compiler bugs with "hello world" programs is not a good sign.

Bruce.




More information about the Digitalmars-d-announce mailing list