Skip to content

Current LDC frontend diff#4688

Closed
dnadlinger wants to merge 1 commit intodlang:masterfrom
dnadlinger:ldc-diff
Closed

Current LDC frontend diff#4688
dnadlinger wants to merge 1 commit intodlang:masterfrom
dnadlinger:ldc-diff

Conversation

@dnadlinger
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request is not meant to be merged. It is merely there
for @yebblies and others to judge the current state.

@ibuclaw
Copy link
Member

ibuclaw commented May 30, 2015

Thanks @klickverbot for doing this.

@dnadlinger
Copy link
Contributor Author

Updated. (No major changes.)

@dnadlinger
Copy link
Contributor Author

Updated the diff once more (still against 2.067.1). No major changes, although a couple of extra member variables are gone.

@yebblies
Copy link
Contributor

How does it look now in D?

@dnadlinger
Copy link
Contributor Author

@yebblies: Updated (now against v2.070.2).


version(IN_LLVM)
{
override void semantic3(Scope *sc)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@klickverbot Did this end up having something to do with the llvm linker bug? Or is it still needed?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@JohanEngelen is the one who did the C++ -> D conversion. However, in this specific case I happen to know that this has been around for ages, and is not related to the linking issue. A year ago or so, I just tried removing the block, and back then, it still made the test suite fail. Maybe the issue has been fixed in the frontend or glue layer since – I don't know, one would have to try.

@ibuclaw
Copy link
Member

ibuclaw commented Apr 6, 2017

Coincidence that I pushed out my rebase 20 minutes earlier? :-)

@ibuclaw ibuclaw added Compiler:LDC LLVM based D Compiler Review:WIP Work In Progress - not ready for review or pulling labels Sep 26, 2017
@andralex
Copy link
Member

OK, so what's the status and outlook of this?

@ibuclaw
Copy link
Member

ibuclaw commented Dec 24, 2017

Same as per gdc diff, this is an FYI pr, rather than something that is mergable.

I'm not sure if ldc is making any vested interest in reducing the amount of differences between themselves and dmd, due to larger number of people who actively develop there. Which is a shame.

@JohanEngelen
Copy link
Contributor

I'm not sure if ldc is making any vested interest in reducing the amount of differences between themselves and dmd

We do...

@ibuclaw
Copy link
Member

ibuclaw commented Dec 24, 2017

We do...

Care to update this then? Or I can go through and say what I think about each individual change.

@JohanEngelen
Copy link
Contributor

Updated to 2.077.1 (LDC master) here: #7506

@wilzbach
Copy link
Contributor

Cool! I guess we can close this then?

@ibuclaw
Copy link
Member

ibuclaw commented Dec 24, 2017

Seems so.

@ibuclaw ibuclaw closed this Dec 24, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Compiler:LDC LLVM based D Compiler Review:WIP Work In Progress - not ready for review or pulling

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants