1.0 ??

[Sean Kelly]

Bill Baxter wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>> It's great that there's an open source D compiler, and I applaud the 
>>> effort of those folks who have gotten it to where it is.  But it 
>>> really should be the MAIN compiler not a sad also-ran huffing and 
>>> puffing to keep up.
>>
>> There's nothing impeding anyone from submitting the patches to it to 
>> keep it up to date. I try pretty hard to make all the updates to the D 
>> language in the front end, to make getting it to GDC easier. For the 
>> rest, I am available for advice and help in any way I can (although I 
>> cannot work on the gnu backend code itself, as I wish to avoid 'taint').
> 
> Hmm.  So why isn't the strategy working?
> Current GDC is based on 0.162 from June 22.  Over ten releases, 4 
> months,  dozens of bug fixes, and at least ten significant features 
> behind DMD.

GDC is more up to date in SVN (maybe 0.168), it just hasn't been 
repackaged since June.

> In your estimation, for someone who knows what they are doing, how long 
> should it take to update GDC for 'an average DMD release'?  Is the 
> problem just that we've been lacking anyone who meets the qualifications 
> since July?  Did I miss the good old days when GDC and DMD used to walk 
> hand in hand and frolic in the Autumn mist?

Library changes are generally not too hard, but compiler changes can 
involve new code generation, etc, which requires a solid understanding 
of GCC at least.


Sean