[PATCH 0/13] D: Submission of D Front End

[Iain Buclaw]

On 12 June 2017 at 20:34, Richard Sandiford
<richard.sandiford@linaro.org> wrote:
> [Disclaimer: I can't approve any of this :-)]
>
> Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw@gdcproject.org> writes:
>>   001 - The front-end (DMD) language implementation and license.
>>   002 - The front-end (GDC) implementation.
>>   003 - The front-end (GDC) changelogs (here be dragons).
>>   004 - The front-end (GDC) config, makefile, and manpages.
>>   005 - GCC configuration file changes and documentation.
>>   006 - Add D language support to GCC proper.
>>   007 - Add D language support to GCC targets.
>>   008 - D2 Testsuite tests.
>>   009 - D2 Testsuite Dejagnu files.
>>   010 - The D runtime library and license.
>>   011 - GCC builtins and runtime support (part of D runtime)
>>   012 - The Phobos runtime library and license.
>>   013 - Phobos config, makefiles, and testsuite.
>
> Just checking, but is it right that of these, the only parts that
> touch generic code are:
>
>>   005 - GCC configuration file changes and documentation.
>>   006 - Add D language support to GCC proper.
>
> Both seem fairly small (bar the autogenerated bits) and almost
> unobjectionable.
>

That is correct.


>>   007 - Add D language support to GCC targets.
>
> In a sense you get to define what's correct here.
>

I've tried to keep a close relationship to where
TARGET_CPU_CPP_BUILTINS and TARGET_OS_CPP_BUILTINS are defined.  The
versions emitted are documented in the D spec.


>>   009 - D2 Testsuite Dejagnu files.
>
> Already approved by Mike.
>
> If that's all, then that's pretty impressive. :-)
>
> I'm not sure who this is a question to really, but how much value is
> there in reviewing the other patches?  Maybe people who know the
> frontend interface well could comment on that part, but would anyone
> here be able to do a meaningful review of the core frontend?  And AIUI
> some of the patches are straight imports from an external upstream.
>

Patches 002 and 004 would also be points of interest, as they interact
with the GCC code and build scripts respectively.  I'm sure there are
parts in there where people will have questions, I certainly will have
questions over whether there's ways to improve things too.


> I was just wondering whether, once 5, 6 and 7 have been reviewed,
> accepting the rest would be a policy decision, or whether there
> was a plan for someone to review the whole series.
>

Patches 001 and 008 are maintained at github.com/dlang/dmd, and
patches 010 and 012 at github.com/dlang/druntime and
github.com/dlang/phobos.  The rest may only be 10% of the entire set,
but that covers everything that was written by both myself, and others
who've contributed t gdc.


> (Sorry if this was discussed and I missed it.)
>

I might be able to dig up some comments from a few years back when I
first proposed this, but otherwise no, I've not seen it discussed yet.

Regards
Iain.