D2 Blockers?

[Jordi]

On 09/20/2010 08:48 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> == 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. ;-)
>

Sound great. If i were to help on this, what would be the easiest task 
to do? I guess merging revisions of druntime and phobos should be easier 
than dmd itself, as they might have less modifications.

Actually i have tried merging with a 3-way merge tool the druntime in 
2.020 and 2.021 with the current gdc and it didn't seem complicated. 
What do you use for testing it? dstress?

j.