[Dlang-internal] druntime: proposed changes in code organization

[Denis Feklushkin]

On Sunday, 17 December 2023 at 09:37:33 UTC, Johan wrote:

>> This is a meaningless block that has formed historically 
>> because it was easier and faster to implement by this way
>
> If it's meaningless, it can be removed today without your big 
> file change.

*Tiny file change

>> (At first, I don't see what currently druntime is distributed 
>> as ready for cross-compilation bundle. I.e., ldc2 archieve 
>> isn't contains druntime binary for Windows, Linux and *BSDs 
>> simultaneously, right? In this case we should not change 
>> anything particularly much in the config)
>
> For cross-compilation, you don't need druntime _binaries_.

Only in dynamic linking mode, yes

> The binaries are only needed for linking. But if linking with 
> druntime/phobos is needed, then LDC has a specific tool to make 
> it easier for users to build druntime+phobos for a different 
> target platform. And then you just specify the location of 
> those binaries on the cmdline. Yes, this can be simplified for 
> continued use by editing ldc2.conf, but it is not required to 
> do so; nor is it needed to have a separate druntime source tree 
> stored somewhere else.

For example, no one is surprised by the different Linux kernel 
headers packages, coresponding to a different kernel binaries, 
but derrived from one kernel source tree

Also, we can generate and provide import/ dirs for a few 
platforms (what you mentioned below) simultaneously if it will be 
decided as more convient

>> As for me, we don't know common this case or not. 
>> "Non-standard OS" includes thousands variations of 
>> hardware+software from realtime embedded software to modern 
>> gaming consoles support or so on.
>>
>> But it will be simpler to be always at second place (after 
>> invincible C and C++) on D support implementation timeline in 
>> the event of the appearance of some new (revolutionary, of 
>> course) devices or OS inventions. So I think I guess that the 
>> impact of such a changes will be great.
>
> You make it sound as if it is currently impossible to implement 
> druntime for linux, Apple, Windows, Solaris, OpenBSD, NetBSD, 
> FreeBSD, DragonFly, Android, ... x86, x86_64, arm32, aarch64, 
> riscv, ... Yet, the implementation for all these exists.

Sorry, but this is obvious demagoguery - matrix of 3 RTOSes, 3 
CPU architectures and 3 LIBCs easily give us 27 platforms in this 
terms

>> ldc2.conf will obtain 3-6 sections (i.e. about ~50 lines 
>> total) for common platforms like Linux, Windows and *BSD. Is 
>> that too expensive?
>
> Please show us the PR where you fix LDC, Dub,

What's wrong with DUB?

> and GDC for the problems you are introducing.

Sorry, but now your turn to propose solution other than these 3 
listed in the previous message