[ABI] 128bit integers and other vendor types

H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Mon Jul 28 11:12:27 PDT 2014


On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 11:03:22AM -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 7/28/14, 4:54 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
> >"Jonathan M Davis"  wrote in message
> >news:lfhsrrkauworheqmedhm at forum.dlang.org...
> >
> >>I would point out that every time I've seen compiler devs discuss
> >>using Phobos in dmd, there has been a large reluctance to do so (if
> >>not outright a desire to avoid it entirely) in order to avoid the
> >>circular dependencies that would ensue (Daniel Murphy in particular
> >>really doesn't seem to like the idea).
> >
> >Yes, and I'm still against it.  It's not about the circular
> >dependency (that already exists with druntime and is manageable) it's
> >that including phobos effectively massively increases the size of the
> >dmd codebase.  Phobos is also tied to the release cycles in a
> >different way than it looks like ddmd will be.  Druntime is much
> >smaller and much less worrying (and impossible to avoid).
> 
> There'd also be the argument that using phobos inside ddmd would make
> the latter a better test for itself and phobos. -- Andrei

FWIW, I'm for dogfooding. I think using Phobos in ddmd will (indirectly)
improve the quality of Phobos. I still have this lurking suspicion that
large swaths of Phobos have only barely been used, and therefore there
are probably many bugs, design issues, and inefficiencies that we're
unaware of. Or only unknown user code out there uses some of these
things, but we don't know about it so we're not conscious of issues that
may arise. Using Phobos in ddmd will give us very strong incentives to
polish Phobos to a far higher quality than it currently is, IMO.


T

-- 
Frank disagreement binds closer than feigned agreement.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list