[OT] LLVM Community Code of Conduct

[Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d]

On 21 October 2015 at 10:26, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d <
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, 21 October 2015 at 08:06:34 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote:
>
>> It might make sense to reconsider upstreaming our inline ASM code. I
>> think the main reason we didn't do that yet was that the druntime
>> developers think of druntime as a compiler specific library anyway. And
>> then there's no use in having GDC specific ASM in a DMD specific druntime.
>>
>
> Even if gdc-specific stuff doesn't go into druntime, I would think that it
> would make sense to update druntime where appropriate to segregate the
> stuff that's compiler-specific so that it's easy for the gdc and ldc teams
> to replace the parts that they need to replace. That being said, I would
> think that using version blocks to separate compiler-specific stuff would
> have been appropriate and that ideally the gdc and ldc teams wouldn't have
> their own versions of druntime or Phobos, but even then, modularizing that
> stuff is likely to be more maintainable than having it scattered throughout
> the code.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis
>


In a way, druntime has three parts to it.

core.stdc:  Exposes enough platform bindings to interact with system C
library.
core, gc: D runtime library.  Everything should be compiler agnostic within
reason.
rt: Per-compiler runtime internals.  EH, Vector operations, Runtime calls,
etc...

The first two are the concern of upstream to maintain.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20151021/fd9a3c9c/attachment.html>