druntime

[Sean Kelly]

From having done this with Tango, a lot of the divergence was with detection compiler to use/not use compiler intrinsics, plus some issues where parts of stdc weren't implemented. If there are other compatibility issues outside rt I'd like to know what they are. I'd certainly be amenable to making druntime more compatible in places. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 8, 2011, at 6:23 PM, Brad Roberts <braddr at puremagic.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>> == Quote from Jonathan M Davis (jmdavisProg at gmx.com)'s article
>>> On 2011-07-08 10:42, bioinfornatics wrote:
>>>> @sean
>>>> if you install ldc2 like:
>>>> $ cmake . -DD_VERSION:STRING=2 -DCONF_INST_DIR:PATH=/etc
>>>> $ make -j4 VERBOSE=2
>>>> $ make -j4 install
>>>> 
>>>> and try install druntime from
>>>> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime.git I can't because
>>>> make file is only for dmd. What i try to said, yes we need 1 druntime so
>>>> for this reason druntime installer need support at least dmd, ldc, gdc.
>>>> But is not case currently. And for this reason d2 can't go to Fedora 16.
>>>> Because ldc2 use cmake for build 3 projects (ldc, druntime, phobos)
>>>> I need 3 installer separately. And ldc2 use a druntime fork!
>>>> 
>>>> thanks for any answer :-)
>>> I believe that it's _expected_ that other compilers will use forks of
>>> druntime. They may have to make changes to druntime to work, and Sean doesn't
>>> want to have to maintain all of the differences for every compiler. Rather,
>>> druntime is the reference implementation intended for dmd, and other compiler
>>> maintainers do whatever they need to with their own version of it to get it
>>> work with their compiler.
>>> - Jonathan M Davis
>> 
>> Exactly this, and the case is also vice versa with gdc. The druntime reference
>> library also does many things that are unreasonable and incompatible with gdc (and
>> I assume ditto ldc too).
>> 
>> One future plan on my list is the restructuring of core/stdc to be more ports
>> friendly (the source, not the installed files) - something to help push along ARM
>> development for D2 with GDC, and hopefully for other archs to follow pursuit. The
>> result being one elongated patch that won't be accepted upstream for sure. :~)
>> 
>> Regards
>> Iain
> 
> This is one area that I disagree with Sean on.  I think it's worth merging 
> in as much as we can to the druntime code base.  I'm not against having 
> separate trees vended by each compiler, but I hope/expect those to be the 
> lowest level details and not be detectably different from phobos or user 
> code.  Having core.stdc diverge, as just one example, is a recipe for 
> having code that only works on top of one specific runtime, which is NOT 
> what we want.
> 
> I _do_ want druntime to support more compilers than dmd an dmore platforms 
> than dmd supports.
> 
> My 2 cents,
> Brad