On Tuesday, 8 September 2015 at 12:56:00 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
This is really very clear and helpful, and I appreciate your
taking the time. I will place it on the wiki if that's okay.
Thats ok.
Library support is surely one of the largest impediments to the
adoption of D, and we ou
On Tuesday, 8 September 2015 at 12:56:00 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
How does it work when external APIs expect objects from the C++
standard library? strings, and so on? How about funny pointer
types? shared_ptr etc? std::vector, std::list?
No, in current state nothing smart is supported.
On Monday, 7 September 2015 at 18:37:49 UTC, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
On Friday, 4 September 2015 at 16:19:49 UTC, Laeeth Isharc
wrote:
Hi Benjamin
Would you be able to give a little more colour on what the
limits are of interoperability for C++ with DMD master or
release ? As I understand it d
On 08.09.2015 11:45, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
On Monday, 7 September 2015 at 19:30:44 UTC, drug wrote:
07.09.2015 21:37, Benjamin Thaut пишет:
snip
So far I haven't found a situation where I couldn't make it work the way
I wanted. Its just some work to write the D headers for the C++ classes
and
On Monday, 7 September 2015 at 19:30:44 UTC, drug wrote:
07.09.2015 21:37, Benjamin Thaut пишет:
snip
So far I haven't found a situation where I couldn't make it
work the way
I wanted. Its just some work to write the D headers for the
C++ classes
and vise versa, because you have to duplicate
07.09.2015 21:37, Benjamin Thaut пишет:
snip
So far I haven't found a situation where I couldn't make it work the way
I wanted. Its just some work to write the D headers for the C++ classes
and vise versa, because you have to duplicate everything once more. An
automated tool for this would be n
On Friday, 4 September 2015 at 16:19:49 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
Hi Benjamin
Would you be able to give a little more colour on what the
limits are of interoperability for C++ with DMD master or
release ? As I understand it destructors and constructors
don't work, and obviously it will get t
On Friday, 4 September 2015 at 16:26:51 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
On Friday, 4 September 2015 at 15:43:44 UTC, Szymon Gatner
wrote:
but now using phobos64.lib from 2.068 distribution does not
even link properly with VC2015.
That's https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14849
yup, that looks like
On Friday, 4 September 2015 at 15:43:44 UTC, Szymon Gatner wrote:
but now using phobos64.lib from 2.068 distribution does not
even link properly with VC2015.
That's https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14849
On Friday, 4 September 2015 at 14:18:40 UTC, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
On Friday, 4 September 2015 at 10:04:48 UTC, Szymon Gatner
wrote:
On Friday, 4 September 2015 at 09:27:14 UTC, Benjamin Thaut
wrote:
On Friday, 4 September 2015 at 09:07:39 UTC, Szymon Gatner
wrote:
What about 32bit phobos? La
On Friday, 4 September 2015 at 14:18:40 UTC, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
On Friday, 4 September 2015 at 10:04:48 UTC, Szymon Gatner
wrote:
On Friday, 4 September 2015 at 09:27:14 UTC, Benjamin Thaut
wrote:
On Friday, 4 September 2015 at 09:07:39 UTC, Szymon Gatner
wrote:
What about 32bit phobos? La
On Friday, 4 September 2015 at 10:04:48 UTC, Szymon Gatner wrote:
On Friday, 4 September 2015 at 09:27:14 UTC, Benjamin Thaut
wrote:
On Friday, 4 September 2015 at 09:07:39 UTC, Szymon Gatner
wrote:
What about 32bit phobos? Last time I checked (2.067) only x64
was distributed.
You have to c
See https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13889
On Friday, 4 September 2015 at 09:27:14 UTC, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
On Friday, 4 September 2015 at 09:07:39 UTC, Szymon Gatner
wrote:
What about 32bit phobos? Last time I checked (2.067) only x64
was distributed.
You have to compile it yourself. Use the win64 makefile and
replace the arch=64
On Friday, 4 September 2015 at 09:07:39 UTC, Szymon Gatner wrote:
What about 32bit phobos? Last time I checked (2.067) only x64
was distributed.
You have to compile it yourself. Use the win64 makefile and
replace the arch=64 with
arch=32mscoff.
For more details see here:
http://www.digital
On Friday, 4 September 2015 at 08:58:41 UTC, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
On Friday, 4 September 2015 at 08:53:27 UTC, Szymon Gatner
wrote:
Hi,
what is the current status of:
- Win x86/32bit/coff32 interop with C++?
- improvements for general C++ interop that were suppose to
come with 2.068
If yo
On Friday, 4 September 2015 at 08:53:27 UTC, Szymon Gatner wrote:
Hi,
what is the current status of:
- Win x86/32bit/coff32 interop with C++?
- improvements for general C++ interop that were suppose to
come with 2.068
If you use either the -m64 or -mscoff32 interop should be pretty
good. I
Hi,
what is the current status of:
- Win x86/32bit/coff32 interop with C++?
- improvements for general C++ interop that were suppose to come
with 2.068
18 matches
Mail list logo
