DMD 1.022 and 2.005 releases

[Walter Bright]

Bruce Adams wrote:
> Walter Bright Wrote:
>> It depends on how portably the C++ code is written, not on how much
>>  there is.
>> 
> I try but you never know how portable your code really isn't until
> you try a different platform/compiler for the first time.

Right. But such is worth doing once in a while, because afterwards one 
tends to implicitly avoid non-portable constructs.

> Another problem comes when you have third party libraries in use. As
> a user of gcc I naturally have made use of a number of linux type, 
> autoconf configure, make based libraries. I can be confident they
> will work with gcc but not necessarily with anything else (especially
> as they tend to written in old fashioned C). I don't want to port
> them as well.

I agree that would be a serious impediment.

>> My experiences with non-standard extensions is there's almost never
>> a good reason to use them, and this issue is yet another good
>> reason not to.
> 
> In general yes. But there are a few exceptions to prove the rule. One
> is access to the stack frame (e.g. for creating stack traces that
> customers can send back). This is one I actually use but only in one
> module. It was painful at the time and no doubt it is equally painful
> every time on each new (or in my case not gnu) compiler. There may be
> other nasty little tricksy things them 'obbits' is keeping from us.

Stack frame layouts might be comparable enough that you can port that 
bit of code.