druntime !!!!

[Brad Roberts]

On 1/23/2011 9:56 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> == 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.

Lists: http://lists.puremagic.com

I like the summary of problems, I dislike that it's more than one report per
bug.  It makes dealing with them a royal pain.  One issue per bug please.