How about a 100% CTFE?
gor.f.gyolchanyan at gmail.com
Mon Nov 7 08:59:08 PST 2011
> classes and exceptions now work in dmd git
> Cross compilation is a _big_ problem
Actually, this is a very good point. I need to give it a thought. I'm
not saying that it is a very good idea, but it might turn out to be if
it proves to be reliable. In return it would provide a very powerful
tool set to the language.
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:49 PM, Don <nospam at nospam.com> wrote:
> On 07.11.2011 14:13, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:
>> After reading
>> I had a thought:
>> Why not compile and run CTFE code in a separate executable, write it's
>> output into a file, read that file and include it's contents into the
>> object file being compiled?
>> This would cover 100% of D in CTFE, including external function calls
>> and classes;
>> String mixins would simply repeat the process of compiling and running
>> an extra temporary executable.
>> This would open up immense opportunities for such things as
>> library-based build systems and tons of unprecedented stuff, that I
>> can't imagine ATM.
> First comment: classes and exceptions now work in dmd git. The remaining
> limitations on CTFE are intentional.
> With what you propose:
> Cross compilation is a _big_ problem. It is not always true that the source
> CPU is the same as the target CPU. The most trivial example, which applies
> already for DMD 64bit, is size_t.sizeof. Conditional compilation can magnify
> these differences. Different CPUs don't just need different backend code
> generation; they may be quite different in the semantic pass. I'm not sure
> that this is solvable.
> immutable X = armSpecificCode(); // you want to run this on an X86???
More information about the Digitalmars-d