[phobos] [D-runtime] Use of X86 and X86_64 in druntime and phobos

[Sean Kelly]

Please submit patches. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 25, 2011, at 9:26 PM, Alex <xtzgzorex at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi folks,
> 
> I've noticed an annoying trend in druntime and phobos of using the X86
> and X86_64 version identifiers to make _bitness-dependent_ decisions.
> Some code goes along the lines of:
> 
> version (X86)
> {
>    ...
> }
> else version (X86_64)
> {
>    ...
> }
> else
>    static assert(false, "Unknown platform");
> 
> In some cases, the assert isn't even present, so you just end up with
> compile errors that you need to go and investigate.
> 
> There's also code such as:
> 
> version (X86)
> {
>    ...
> }
> else
> {
>    ...
> }
> 
> (Notice the unconditional else clause.)
> 
> This makes porting of druntime and phobos to non-x86 architectures a
> massive pain; there are so many places that need to be checked by hand
> or they won't work correctly on either 32-bit or 64-bit architectures
> (and in some cases, you won't get any error at compile-time, but
> rather observe a runtime crash).
> 
> I realize most non-DMD compilers maintain their own druntime/phobos
> trees, but one has to keep in mind that upstream druntime/phobos are
> merged into these regularly. I believe it is in everyone's best
> interest if we stop abusing architecture version identifiers as
> bitness version identifiers. IOW, use D_LP64 instead of X86 and
> X86_64.
> 
> If we can agree on this, I'll gladly submit some patches to both
> projects to sort this out.
> 
> (I ran into these issues while building GDC as an ARM cross-compiler.)
> 
> Regards,
> Alex
> _______________________________________________
> D-runtime mailing list
> D-runtime at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/d-runtime