D2 Blockers?

[Iain Buclaw]

== Quote from Jordi (jordi at rovira.cat)'s article
> On 08/18/2010 03:07 AM, dsimcha wrote:
> > == Quote from Iain Buclaw (ibuclaw at ubuntu.com)'s article
> >> Current developments that are taking priority first (in order) are:
> >> * Updating/Uploading packages in Debian and Ubuntu - as of writing, package
> >> is currently being built in Debian, with a predicted success across all 14
> >> supported architectures.>:-)
> >> * Port GDC to GCC-4.4 - nearly done, with one or two show-stoppers remaining
> >> with static chain decls and exprs.
> >> * Sort out the outstanding merges of D 1.062 and 1.063 - which somewhere
> >> along the line lost 64bit support. !!! - barely even started looking into it
> >> yet.
> >> Current blockers that need to be organised out (in my opinion) before D2 can
> >> be emerged are:
> >> * Integration into current GCC patches, which will require a regeneration of
> >> _all_ patches in the patch directory (even those I cannot account for as
> >> working).
> >> * Figuring out what internals need to be migrated from the current phobos2
> >> directory, what needs to keep.
> >> * A general consensus needs to be reached on how we should handle ASM
> >> version specifiers. Gnu_InlineAsmX86? D_InlineAsmX86? 64bit? Sort out* A
general consensus needs to be reached on how we should handle ASM version
> >> calling conventions?
> >> * GDC Driver updates to tie the whole thing together - the easy bit. ;-)
> >> Anything I missed? Should I be pushing D2 further up the stack of my list of
> >> TODOs?
> >> Regards
> >
> > It's tough to say where D2 support should be prioritized relative to packaging, D1
> > fixes, general infrastructure improvements, etc.  My biased opinion (since I
> > personally don't use D1 and have tons of code written for the latest versions of
> > D2) is that getting a basically-working D2.048 compiler is by far the highest
> > priority.  I personally (definitely NOT speaking for the rest of the community)
> > have no use whatsoever for a D compiler that doesn't work with code written for
> > DMD 2.048.  However, I'm sure D1 users would beg to differ.  I guess it really
> > comes down to the ratio of D1 users to D2 users.> >
>
> I just wanted to drop a small note to say i totally agree with dsimcha
> on prioritizing the version upgrades for gdc for d2. This would really
> strengthen D in general.

I think it's pretty safe to say now that all other priorities I gave mention to a
month ago have been done and dusted. I've switched all my builds to D2 (so you
could say that I'm solely working on it now), and druntime is getting on a little
bit better with non-i386 architectures - having removed/replaced most problematic
code. Thanks to everyone who's been giving me feedback on that.

I suppose the next step is to get on with the next frontend merge, 2.021. Though
admittedly it wouldn't have taken this long if the changes weren't so breaking. ;-)