newCTFE Status November 2018
dlang at joakim.fea.st
Mon Dec 10 16:03:57 UTC 2018
On Monday, 10 December 2018 at 14:36:36 UTC, kinke wrote:
> On Monday, 10 December 2018 at 13:20:32 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 at 14:00, Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d
>>> ctfloat depends on the C runtime, and therefore it's
>>> implementation dependent.
> For DMD, yes; GDC obviously doesn't use the C runtime, and LDC
> does partially (which should be fixed at some point).
>>> I'd rather go with an implementation which I have verified
>>> And where I can give meaningful statements about what it can,
>>> can't support.
>>> I'd love to not re-invent the weel; But we don't have a wheel.
> Again, that's the case for DMD. Considering DMD only supports
> x86 targets with x87 reals and isn't really usable/used for
> cross-compilation, one could argue that using a software real_t
> for DMD is overkill, reducing CTFE speed for
> host-C-runtime-independent results (which might lead to new
> runtime/compile-time divergences).
>> Then fix the wheel - you've already gone as far as taking one
>> soft-float implementation, use it for the alias to real_t!
> My impression was that Stefan was about to port some
> implementation, that's why I interfered, in the hopes of
> accelerating newCTFE deployment. ;) - So if it's already
> implemented and fully in D, then perfect, I'll be more than
> happy to incorporate it as LDC's real_t. :)
I think they're implying he already got newCTFE working with a
BSD-licensed softfloat-2 written in C, and he plans to rewrite
its functionality in D and Boost-license it.
Might be a good idea for ldc to use that C softfloat-2 library
too, since ldc's BSD-licensed anyway, as opposed to the
More information about the Digitalmars-d