druntime !!!!

Iain Buclaw ibuclaw at ubuntu.com
Sun Jan 23 09:56:11 PST 2011


== Quote from Brad Roberts (braddr at puremagic.com)'s article
> On 1/22/2011 4:32 PM, Robert Clipsham wrote:
> > On 22/01/11 23:58, bioinfornatics wrote:
> >> They are something wrong with druntime management!!!
> >> Why druntime do not support gdc or ldc2?
> >> Its is very crap thing i hope druntime will add soon gdc support. We can
send
> >> ldc and gdc patch.
> >> Thanks for all
> >>
> >> best regards
> >
> > I've been talking to you on IRC about this, but I'll reiterate it here for
> > everyone elses benefit. Having support for each compiler in druntime is a bad
> > idea. This is what druntime did initially when it was forked from tango. The
> > trouble was that as the compiler got updated, the runtime needed to be
updated
> > too, and the compiler and runtime became out of sync very easily, and getting
> > everything up to date again was a pain.
> >
> > The solution to this is to have each compiler maintain its own druntime
> > compiler-specifics, and have the non-compiler-specific code in a main
druntime
> > repository - this way all that is needed is to copy/paste the compiler
specific
> > code into druntime. This works, as when the compiler is updated, so is the
> > compiler-specific portion of druntime and nothing gets out of sync.
> >
> > Of course, a lot of druntime isn't compiler specific, for these parts patches
> > should probably be applied. I'm not entirely sure where gdc and ldc are with
> > respect to this kind of patch, I know they both have complete druntime
> > implementations, but I'm sure if this kind of patch was made (preferably in
> > smaller, individual patches for each feature/bug etc) it would be applied.
> >
> > Of course, this is just the situation as I see it, and from memory, the
druntime
> > folk will probably chime in and give the full story.
> >
> Personally, I'd like to see one common runtime, but to achieve that requires
> that the compiler/runtime interface be essentially the same between the
> compilers.  That's an achievable goal, but it has to actually be an agreed upon
> goal.  Today, both gdc and ldc's interface with the runtime don't match dmd's.
> So, where do they differ today?  Why?  Can they evolve to a common interface?
> I'll happily apply patches from anyone providing them that work to achieve that
> goal.  Please use bugzilla to submit them.
> One implied part of this goal is that dmd is, while an important stake holder,
> needs to play nice too.  Changes need to go through a discussion round before
> being made.. no unilateral changes.
> Also, this discussion should probably drift over to the d-runtime at puremagic.com
> mailing list.. at least the parts that are directly related to accomplishing
the
> changes.
> My 2 cents,
> Brad

I'm not sure where to find / subscribe to the mailing list, so I posted here:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5478

Regards.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list