dmd 1.060 and 2.045 release

[Walter Bright]

Robert Clipsham wrote:
> You'd be ok with, for example:
>   -g             add symbolic debug info
>   -gc            add symbolic debug info, pretend to be C++
> 
> Instead of C then? Or some other language that debuggers support? I say 
> this as C++ supports more of D's features, so we'd be able to give 
> better debugging info for debuggers without explicit D support.

Yes.

> There was another point in that post, about the D extensions to DWARF... 
> I think it is unlikely that patches to support D's extensions to DWARF 
> would be accepted into gdb, particularly as the values for the DW_TAG's 
> conflicts with things in the DWARF4 spec. I think there should be a way 
> to act like D but without these extensions. Ideally the solution to this 
> is to try and get the extensions officially into the DWARF spec, which 
> I'd be willing to push for if possible.

That's the problem with D extensions; unless they get officially adopted they 
conflict with future changes to the spec. We need to get them officially adopted.