Official compiler

[Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d]

On 18 February 2016 at 11:53, tsbockman via Digitalmars-d <
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, 18 February 2016 at 10:48:46 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>
>> There seems to be a deterrence against backporting ie: 2.068 fixes to
>> 2.066 for LDC/GDC.  I have no idea why, I do it all the time. :-)
>>
>
> Part of the problem is just that no one else knows *which* fixes have been
> back-ported - there doesn't seem to be a list prominently displayed
> anywhere on the GDC home page.
>
> This leaves people like myself to default to the assumption that the
> GDC/LDC front-end basically matches the DMD one of the same version.
>

Typically things that you no one will ever notice, nor care to.  Anything
that causes an ICE is a candidate for backporting.  Features or changes in
behaviour are not in that list of approved things to backport.  For
example, I typically raise (and Kai probably too) about half a dozen
patches to DMD that fix bad or nonsensical frontend "lowering" in almost
*every* release.

Saying that, I have in the past:
- Backported vector support from master when they first got accepted.
- Current 2.066FE uses C++ support from 2.068.

But these are, again, nothing that end users would ever be aware about.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20160218/2ae2362e/attachment-0001.html>