Re: Should we make DMD1.051 the recommended stable version?
2009/11/18 Don nos...@nospam.com If anyone has a reason that they have to use 1.030 instead of 1.051, now would be a great time to say why. dmd 1.030 build small execute file size on windows. I use bud build the dwt.lib. then use dmd -L+dwt.lib build the execute file. it is much fast then other ways. the problem is , execute file size is become very big since dmd 1.41 . I try dwt-win and dwt Shawn Liu , the execute file size is both grow big. I try dmd 1.035 to dmd 1.041, the execute file size is similar, build Snippet38 the size is 850kb. I try dmd 1.041 to dmd1052, the file size is 1.7M。 my os is Window XP. I use bud all.d -clean -full -allobj -ofdwt -release -O -I../ -lib to build dwt.lib. I use dmd1040 Snippet38.d -IE:\dmd\gui\dwt1 -L+advapi32_dwt.lib+gdi32_dwt.lib+comctl32_dwt.lib+comdlg32.lib+imm32_dwt.lib+kernel32_dwt.lib+msimg32_dwt.lib+ole32_dwt.lib+oleacc_dwt.lib+oleaut32_dwt.lib+olepro32_dwt.lib+shell32_dwt.lib+user32_dwt.lib+usp10_dwt.lib+version_dwt.lib+uuid.lib+dwt.lib -L/SUBSYSTEM:windows:4 to build Snippet38 . I spent a lot of time on this issue, and post some mail to newsgroup. may be because my poor english, no body reply.
Re: Should we make DMD1.051 the recommended stable version?
2009/11/18 Don nos...@nospam.com If anyone has a reason that they have to use 1.030 instead of 1.051, now would be a great time to say why. dmd 1.030 build small execute file size on windows. I use bud build the dwt.lib. then use dmd -L+dwt.lib build the execute file. it is much fast then other ways. the problem is , execute file size is become very big since dmd 1.41 . I try dwt-win and dwt Shawn Liu , the execute file size is both grow big. I try dmd 1.035 to dmd 1.041, the execute file size is similar, build Snippet38 the size is 850kb. I try dmd 1.041 to dmd1052, the file size is 1.7M。 my os is Window XP. I use bud all.d -clean -full -allobj -ofdwt -release -O -I../ -lib to build dwt.lib. I use dmd1040 Snippet38.d -IE:\dmd\gui\dwt1 -L+advapi32_dwt.lib+gdi32_dwt.lib+comctl32_dwt.lib+comdlg32.lib+imm32_dwt.lib+kernel32_dwt.lib+msimg32_dwt.lib+ole32_dwt.lib+oleacc_dwt.lib+oleaut32_dwt.lib+olepro32_dwt.lib+shell32_dwt.lib+user32_dwt.lib+usp10_dwt.lib+version_dwt.lib+uuid.lib+dwt.lib -L/SUBSYSTEM:windows:4 to build Snippet38 . I spent a lot of time on this issue, and post some mail to newsgroup. may be because my poor english, no body reply.
Should we make DMD1.051 the recommended stable version?
The standard download still points to DMD1.030 (May 2008). A couple of hundred serious bugs have been fixed since that time. Some of the intermediate releases had regressions which prevented many people from using them, but I don't think that's true of this one. I think it's a great release. The known regressions of DMD1.051 compared to DMD1.030 are: 2393 IFTI regression on (T:char)(T[]) vs (T:dchar)(T[]) 370 Compiler stack overflow on recursive typeof in function declaration. 3469 ICE(func.c): Regression. Calling non-template function as a template, from another module but in my opinion these are not serious enough to prevent 1.051 from being recommended. (BTW I've already sent Walter patches for those second two bugs). I'd like to protect newbies from encountering internal compiler errors which have already been fixed, and from experiencing frustration with CTFE. If anyone has a reason that they have to use 1.030 instead of 1.051, now would be a great time to say why.
Re: Should we make DMD1.051 the recommended stable version?
Don wrote: The standard download still points to DMD1.030 (May 2008). A couple of hundred serious bugs have been fixed since that time. Some of the intermediate releases had regressions which prevented many people from using them, but I don't think that's true of this one. I think it's a great release. [...] I'd like to protect newbies from encountering internal compiler errors which have already been fixed, and from experiencing frustration with CTFE. If anyone has a reason that they have to use 1.030 instead of 1.051, now would be a great time to say why. Not saying have to, but it was matching the GDC version I had: svn co https://dgcc.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/dgcc/trunk/ gdc Updating would mean getting the patches from the unofficial tree: hg clone http://bitbucket.org/goshawk/gdc/ But as long as it is working properly, I could do some installers along with the build patches already needed for Vista and Leopard. They would probably have been at DMD 1.020 - had it not been for the issue with Tango not working with that version (i.e. GDC 0.24) http://gdcwin.sourceforge.net/ http://gdcmac.sourceforge.net/ --anders
Re: Should we make DMD1.051 the recommended stable version?
Don nos...@nospam.com wrote in message news:he0d7l$34...@digitalmars.com... The standard download still points to DMD1.030 (May 2008). A couple of hundred serious bugs have been fixed since that time. Some of the intermediate releases had regressions which prevented many people from using them, but I don't think that's true of this one. I think it's a great release. The known regressions of DMD1.051 compared to DMD1.030 are: 2393 IFTI regression on (T:char)(T[]) vs (T:dchar)(T[]) 370 Compiler stack overflow on recursive typeof in function declaration. 3469 ICE(func.c): Regression. Calling non-template function as a template, from another module but in my opinion these are not serious enough to prevent 1.051 from being recommended. (BTW I've already sent Walter patches for those second two bugs). I'd like to protect newbies from encountering internal compiler errors which have already been fixed, and from experiencing frustration with CTFE. If anyone has a reason that they have to use 1.030 instead of 1.051, now would be a great time to say why. The only potential problem I see with that is that if you want to use tango, any DMD beyond 1.043 would force you to go with tango trunk, which wouldn't make much sense for anyone who is trying to stick with stable releases of things.
Re: Should we make DMD1.051 the recommended stable version?
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:15:47 +0300, Nick Sabalausky a...@a.a wrote: Don nos...@nospam.com wrote in message news:he0d7l$34...@digitalmars.com... The standard download still points to DMD1.030 (May 2008). A couple of hundred serious bugs have been fixed since that time. Some of the intermediate releases had regressions which prevented many people from using them, but I don't think that's true of this one. I think it's a great release. The known regressions of DMD1.051 compared to DMD1.030 are: 2393 IFTI regression on (T:char)(T[]) vs (T:dchar)(T[]) 370 Compiler stack overflow on recursive typeof in function declaration. 3469 ICE(func.c): Regression. Calling non-template function as a template, from another module but in my opinion these are not serious enough to prevent 1.051 from being recommended. (BTW I've already sent Walter patches for those second two bugs). I'd like to protect newbies from encountering internal compiler errors which have already been fixed, and from experiencing frustration with CTFE. If anyone has a reason that they have to use 1.030 instead of 1.051, now would be a great time to say why. The only potential problem I see with that is that if you want to use tango, any DMD beyond 1.043 would force you to go with tango trunk, which wouldn't make much sense for anyone who is trying to stick with stable releases of things. Recent poll has shown that most people use Tango trunk anyway. Perhaps, it's time for another Tango release?
Re: Should we make DMD1.051 the recommended stable version?
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:19:11 +0300, Denis Koroskin wrote: On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:15:47 +0300, Nick Sabalausky a...@a.a wrote: Don nos...@nospam.com wrote in message news:he0d7l$34...@digitalmars.com... The standard download still points to DMD1.030 (May 2008). A couple of hundred serious bugs have been fixed since that time. Some of the intermediate releases had regressions which prevented many people from using them, but I don't think that's true of this one. I think it's a great release. The known regressions of DMD1.051 compared to DMD1.030 are: 2393 IFTI regression on (T:char)(T[]) vs (T:dchar)(T[]) 370 Compiler stack overflow on recursive typeof in function declaration. 3469 ICE(func.c): Regression. Calling non-template function as a template, from another module but in my opinion these are not serious enough to prevent 1.051 from being recommended. (BTW I've already sent Walter patches for those second two bugs). I'd like to protect newbies from encountering internal compiler errors which have already been fixed, and from experiencing frustration with CTFE. If anyone has a reason that they have to use 1.030 instead of 1.051, now would be a great time to say why. The only potential problem I see with that is that if you want to use tango, any DMD beyond 1.043 would force you to go with tango trunk, which wouldn't make much sense for anyone who is trying to stick with stable releases of things. Recent poll has shown that most people use Tango trunk anyway. Perhaps, it's time for another Tango release? 1.051 looks like a good choice for a stable dmd version. I think that a new Tango release is underway already.
Re: Should we make DMD1.051 the recommended stable version?
Denis Koroskin 2kor...@gmail.com wrote in message news:op.u3k8d9i9o7c...@dkoroskin.saber3d.local... On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:15:47 +0300, Nick Sabalausky a...@a.a wrote: Don nos...@nospam.com wrote in message news:he0d7l$34...@digitalmars.com... The standard download still points to DMD1.030 (May 2008). A couple of hundred serious bugs have been fixed since that time. Some of the intermediate releases had regressions which prevented many people from using them, but I don't think that's true of this one. I think it's a great release. The known regressions of DMD1.051 compared to DMD1.030 are: 2393 IFTI regression on (T:char)(T[]) vs (T:dchar)(T[]) 370 Compiler stack overflow on recursive typeof in function declaration. 3469 ICE(func.c): Regression. Calling non-template function as a template, from another module but in my opinion these are not serious enough to prevent 1.051 from being recommended. (BTW I've already sent Walter patches for those second two bugs). I'd like to protect newbies from encountering internal compiler errors which have already been fixed, and from experiencing frustration with CTFE. If anyone has a reason that they have to use 1.030 instead of 1.051, now would be a great time to say why. The only potential problem I see with that is that if you want to use tango, any DMD beyond 1.043 would force you to go with tango trunk, which wouldn't make much sense for anyone who is trying to stick with stable releases of things. Recent poll has shown that most people use Tango trunk anyway. Perhaps, it's time for another Tango release? I don't think anyone would disagree that it's long past time for another Tango release ;) But, I would venture to guess very few people stick with DMD stable either, probably even fewer than Tango 0.99.8. Heck, DMD's stable gets updated less often than Tango's stable releases. Personally, I don't see much of a reason for D1/Tango users not to use DMD 1.051 / Tango trunk, at least until Tango 0.99.9 comes out. But I just felt that for anyone who does want to stick with DMD's stable for whatever reason, it's likely they may want to stick with latest stable for Tango too. (Assuming, of course, that they want to use tango...not that that's a vary large assumption for a D1 user).
Re: Should we make DMD1.051 the recommended stable version?
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Nick Sabalausky a...@a.a wrote: Denis Koroskin 2kor...@gmail.com wrote in message news:op.u3k8d9i9o7c...@dkoroskin.saber3d.local... On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:15:47 +0300, Nick Sabalausky a...@a.a wrote: Don nos...@nospam.com wrote in message news:he0d7l$34...@digitalmars.com... The standard download still points to DMD1.030 (May 2008). A couple of hundred serious bugs have been fixed since that time. Some of the intermediate releases had regressions which prevented many people from using them, but I don't think that's true of this one. I think it's a great release. The known regressions of DMD1.051 compared to DMD1.030 are: 2393 IFTI regression on (T:char)(T[]) vs (T:dchar)(T[]) 370 Compiler stack overflow on recursive typeof in function declaration. 3469 ICE(func.c): Regression. Calling non-template function as a template, from another module but in my opinion these are not serious enough to prevent 1.051 from being recommended. (BTW I've already sent Walter patches for those second two bugs). I'd like to protect newbies from encountering internal compiler errors which have already been fixed, and from experiencing frustration with CTFE. If anyone has a reason that they have to use 1.030 instead of 1.051, now would be a great time to say why. The only potential problem I see with that is that if you want to use tango, any DMD beyond 1.043 would force you to go with tango trunk, which wouldn't make much sense for anyone who is trying to stick with stable releases of things. Recent poll has shown that most people use Tango trunk anyway. Perhaps, it's time for another Tango release? I don't think anyone would disagree that it's long past time for another Tango release ;) But, I would venture to guess very few people stick with DMD stable either, probably even fewer than Tango 0.99.8. Heck, DMD's stable gets updated less often than Tango's stable releases. Personally, I don't see much of a reason for D1/Tango users not to use DMD 1.051 / Tango trunk, at least until Tango 0.99.9 comes out. But I just felt that for anyone who does want to stick with DMD's stable for whatever reason, it's likely they may want to stick with latest stable for Tango too. (Assuming, of course, that they want to use tango...not that that's a vary large assumption for a D1 user). It would also be possible to just release tango 0.99.8.1 (or something), LDC has a patch against 0.99.8 that probably fixes it for the latest dmd as well.
Re: Should we make DMD1.051 the recommended stable version?
Tomas Lindquist Olsen: It would also be possible to just release tango 0.99.8.1 (or something), LDC has a patch against 0.99.8 that probably fixes it for the latest dmd as well. Just a note: after 0.99 there is 0.100 then 0.101, etc. It's not a real number, it's a concatenation of natural numbers in a tree. Bye, bearophile
