why to (not) support "older" compiler versions
drug via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Tue Nov 3 05:00:31 PST 2015
On 03.11.2015 15:50, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> Well, how would that work? :-)
> What you've probably misheard is half of a phrase. Moving to towards
> ddmd is not to be confused with moving towards a shared 'frontend'
> codebase, and is the first half of the correct sentence. The second
> half is that even then, that has no guarantee of keeping things in sync
> without also integrating other 'ends' into the CI process.
> This requires that we set-up an infrastructure where:
> - New PRs are tested against all compilers before merging. This not to
> be confused with our current set-up where all compilers build DMD.
> Specifically new changes upstream must:
> 1. Be able to apply the change cleanly in their local repositories
> 2. Build themselves without error.
> - We then need another process in place to keep each end in sync after
> changes upstream are applied.
> It was hoped that moving towards ddmd would force a lot of the
> ABI-specific code to be moved into Target or Port (host) interfaces that
> are agnostic to the backend. There are still many target-specific areas
> where this is not the case, and on top of that there are regressions in
> the host-specific interfaces.
> In short, there will always be a heavy maintenance burden regardless of
> what language we're written in. :-)
I see. Thank you for your answer!
More information about the Digitalmars-d