[dmd-beta] 64 bit beta for Linux

Andrei Alexandrescu andrei at erdani.com
Thu Feb 10 23:31:58 PST 2011

I'll take care of that.

Sent by shouting through my showerhead.

On Feb 10, 2011, at 11:40 PM, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com>  

> On Thursday, February 10, 2011 13:55:26 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 2/10/11 3:20 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>> On Thursday 10 February 2011 12:48:07 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>> Doesn't version(StdDdoc) take care of this as discussed?
>>> I don't know. I've never heard of version(StdDdoc) that I recall. I
>>> thought that the issue was that we had to pick a version to use  
>>> instead
>>> of version(D_Ddoc) (which could be StdDdoc) and then adjust the
>>> makefiles appropriately. So, unless the makefiles have already been
>>> adjusted, I don't see how version(StdDdoc) could work. Or maybe I'm
>>> missing or misunderstanding something here.
>> That is it. The makefile has not been adjusted but that's minor work.
>> We'd essentially be getting back to our previous approach to  
>> generating
>> documentation.
> Well, then I suggest that we adjust the makefiles relatively soon  
> (before the
> next release certainly) for both druntime and phobos. And you're  
> probably the
> man for the job in this case. You're the one dealing with the  
> documentation on
> the website, and presumably you have a fair idea of what to do.
> I'm perfectly willing to go and fix std.datetime and elsewhere to use
> version(StdDoc), but I don't want to be the one to edit the  
> makefiles (though a
> search and replace on version(D_Ddoc) would be easy enough, so  
> fixing the source
> files isn't hard).
> - Jonathan M Davis
> _______________________________________________
> dmd-beta mailing list
> dmd-beta at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta

More information about the dmd-beta mailing list