Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
Am Thu, 06 Jun 2013 14:44:57 +0200 schrieb Dicebot m.stras...@gmail.com: On Thursday, 6 June 2013 at 10:50:30 UTC, Marco Leise wrote: Yes please, this is holding me back from updating the Gentoo package for dmd 2.063. (Unless I want to add that missing file as a patch.) Why not use git tag instead? The license doesn't allow redistribution of dmd, probably in order to have a download statistic. I don't want to circumvent that by creating my own .zip file or using an auto-generated archive. (Although I wouldn't mind getting rid of the pre-built binaries. :) ) -- Marco
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
On Saturday, 8 June 2013 at 14:10:05 UTC, Marco Leise wrote: The license doesn't allow redistribution of dmd, probably in order to have a download statistic. The reason for this is the unfortunate backend licensing situation. Download statistics have nothing to do with that. David
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
On Thursday, 6 June 2013 at 10:50:30 UTC, Marco Leise wrote: Yes please, this is holding me back from updating the Gentoo package for dmd 2.063. (Unless I want to add that missing file as a patch.) Why not use git tag instead?
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 15:16:28 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Hello, We are pleased to announce that dmd 2.063, the reference compiler of the D programming language, is now available for download for OSX, Windows, and a variety of Unixen: http://dlang.org/download.html I just tried to compile dmd and it failed because the header file irstate.h was missing. After retrieving it from git, the compile went through, so it's probably the only file missing. I think the zip needs to be updated.
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
On Sat, 2013-06-01 at 09:36 -0700, Ellery Newcomer wrote: On 06/01/2013 02:31 AM, Russel Winder wrote: On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 13:50 -0700, Ellery Newcomer wrote: […] just tried it on ubuntu 12.10, and it does the same. are you using -defaultlib=libphobos2.so I suspect I may be doing different things from you as I never use an option of that sort. Perhaps we should agree a code and command to make the tests. the way I build is detailed in the makefile here: https://bitbucket.org/ariovistus/pyd/src/296ef002750411331ec9a3bcb14aed345b65d8d5/examples/misc/dmd_sharedlibs?at=default I cloned PyD – I have been intending to do this for ages to try D for Python extensions – and ran make in the directory you mentioned: | make gcc -c -fPIC so_ctor.c -o so_ctor.o dmd -unittest -fPIC -defaultlib=libphobos2.so -shared test1.d boilerplate.d so_ctor.o -oflibtest1.so #dmd -c -unittest -fPIC test1.d boilerplate.d -oftemp.o #dmd -shared -defaultlib=phobos2so temp.o so_ctor.o -oflibtest1.so gcc test1.c `pwd`/libtest1.so -o test1.x ./test1.x initing yawn. stretch. lets test this donut. foo(2)=6 dniting yawn. z -- Russel. = Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
Am Sun, 2 Jun 2013 07:40:27 +0200 schrieb Marco Leise marco.le...@gmx.de: For some reason I still cannot build dmd 2.063 from the zip release. I mentioned it before the release on the beta and internals mailing lists and maybe I'm just overlooking something trivial, but when I run make I get: make: *** Keine Regel vorhanden, um das Target »irstate.h«, benötigt von »irstate.o«, zu erstellen. Schluss. irstate.c is there, but irstate.h is missing. Is that like last time when VERSION was missing? Ok, a pull request about that got merged. Let's see if it ends up in the .zip ;) -- Marco
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 11:23 -0700, Ellery Newcomer wrote: […] who packages your dmd? Normally I would use the one from APT-D, but as this not at 2.063 as yet I used the deb downloaded from the D download page. This necessitates removing all packages from APT-D since they depend on exactly a given DMD version. I have this installed GtkD from master/HEAD and not got Vibe.d just at the minute. -- Russel. = Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
On 06/02/2013 11:48 AM, Russel Winder wrote: On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 11:23 -0700, Ellery Newcomer wrote: […] who packages your dmd? Normally I would use the one from APT-D, but as this not at 2.063 as yet I used the deb downloaded from the D download page. This necessitates removing all packages from APT-D since they depend on exactly a given DMD version. I have this installed GtkD from master/HEAD and not got Vibe.d just at the minute. so we are using the same package. ?? oh. dpkg -L just doesn't list it. but it's definitely missing from the rpm.
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 12:48 -0700, Ellery Newcomer wrote: […] so we are using the same package. ?? oh. dpkg -L just doesn't list it. Symbolic links aren't in the deb, they are created by the post install script once the shared library is installed. but it's definitely missing from the rpm. Perhaps RPMs should have a post install script? -- Russel. = Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
On 06/02/2013 12:56 PM, Russel Winder wrote: On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 12:48 -0700, Ellery Newcomer wrote: […] so we are using the same package. ?? oh. dpkg -L just doesn't list it. Symbolic links aren't in the deb, they are created by the post install script once the shared library is installed. but it's definitely missing from the rpm. Perhaps RPMs should have a post install script? you can package relative links in rpm. https://bitbucket.org/ariovistus/rpm-buildscripts/src/21921c736116a51f60db4ab9cb5852fc0ae0b63c/dmd-git2rpm?at=default#cl-293
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 13:50 -0700, Ellery Newcomer wrote: […] just tried it on ubuntu 12.10, and it does the same. are you using -defaultlib=libphobos2.so I suspect I may be doing different things from you as I never use an option of that sort. Perhaps we should agree a code and command to make the tests. I definitely have everything though: /usr/lib/libphobos-ldc-debug.a /usr/lib/libphobos-ldc.a /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libphobos2.a /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libphobos2.so /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libphobos2.so.0.63 /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libphobos2.a /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libphobos2.so /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libphobos2.so.0.63 Though I note that the installer is getting it all wrong wrt symbolic links: -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3924435 May 30 04:55 /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libphobos2.so -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4629987 May 30 04:55 /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libphobos2.so lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 May 31 14:14 /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libphobos2.so.0.63 - libphobos2.so lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 May 31 14:14 /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libphobos2.so.0.63 - libphobos2.so The so link should point to the soname version link which points to the fully qualified version which is the real file. The DMD deb gets this all the wrong way around :-(( -- Russel. = Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
On 06/01/2013 02:31 AM, Russel Winder wrote: On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 13:50 -0700, Ellery Newcomer wrote: […] just tried it on ubuntu 12.10, and it does the same. are you using -defaultlib=libphobos2.so I suspect I may be doing different things from you as I never use an option of that sort. Perhaps we should agree a code and command to make the tests. the way I build is detailed in the makefile here: https://bitbucket.org/ariovistus/pyd/src/296ef002750411331ec9a3bcb14aed345b65d8d5/examples/misc/dmd_sharedlibs?at=default
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
On 5/31/13, Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com wrote: On 5/30/13, Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote: Hello, We seem to have a regression affecting the zipped release: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10215 Kenji has reduced this, and apparently it's a problem with the actual zipped release, not any commit. We really should provide an emergency release as soon as possible, this is a rather serious bug.
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
On Friday, 31 May 2013 at 00:28:58 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote: Perfect chance to try out the new release process. Patch 2.063 and release 2.063.1. Actually v2.063.1 is the current one, check the dmd tags ;) It will be v2.063.2 P.S. It has made life of linux packagers SOOO much easier ^_^
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 22:41:08 UTC, Rob T wrote:= Prior to issuing a release like this, it should instead be made public as a stable release candidate with full installer on the downloads page for review by anyone. After the bugs are worked out and some time has elapsed, the stable RC is simply declared stable final and re-released as such with the usual big announcement. --rt I disagree. Anything made public is treated as a release. It does not matter how to you call it. And new release scheme with minor version numbers has been adopted recently, so there are no issues in fixing those regression and updating release with v2.063.2 tag now - essentially will do the same stuff.
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
On 2013-05-30 17:16, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Hello, We are pleased to announce that dmd 2.063, the reference compiler of the D programming language, is now available for download for OSX, Windows, and a variety of Unixen: http://dlang.org/download.html The -transition=field flag seems to be undocumented. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
I want to express my sincere gratitude to everyone who has been involved in doing this release. It is a major breakthrough in D development and release process and a solid step towards truly mature project. Really, a lot of small but important changes have just happened that make this release extra awesome: 1) It was a great pleasure to see real project authors coming to beta list and calling problems found by their code out loud before release is made. It is how it was intended to work and it finally works. 2) Judging by tags in D repos, new release versioning scheme is making its way into being adopted and used. That means that those few regression not caught by beta can be fixed now and release as 2.063.2, no need to wait for 2.064 and suffer. Awesome. 3) Final decision about major breaking bug fix is surprisingly wise and close to well-define transition process I have been asking for so long. (If you have missed it, it looks like this: release n: warning, release n+1: deprecation, release n+2: new behavior) Resolution if this problem alone is a major step towards proud title of stable and mature project and I hope it won't be a rare exception ;) 4) Changelog. It rocks. It fulfills my deeply hidden desires. Andrej, you have done an astonishing job here. Yay!
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
Nick Sabalausky, el 30 de May a las 22:47 me escribiste: On Fri, 31 May 2013 03:50:51 +0200 Rob T al...@ucora.com wrote: Yes, but because there's no link on the main page and no installer, the RC's are effectively closed to the public because only people in the know will go through the trouble to get the RC's and install them. I'm only talking about when the next release gets very to release should something like this be done. It'll make installing a new release far less risky business when it goes final. It'll improve confidence in the final product and further reduce or completely eliminate nasty surprises. IMO doing this will have a similar positive effect like as we've seen with the improved release log. --rt Yea, greater visibility for the betas could probably still help. Yeah, and that's exactly what I suggested here several times, and ultimately at DConf :). A step forward has been made in this release, as you said, betas were announced in this NG for the first time, before they were announced only in the beta ML. Now we need to put version numbers to different betas, put a link to them in the main page (with the complete changelog, so people also know what's new and try the new stuff) and wait a little longer before releasing the final version. Also, to avoid a lot of release burden, I don't think there is a need to fix a regression and instantly pseudo-release a new beta, ending with 6 or 7 betas. Is better to wait a little longer between releases and get more fixes in each release (unless there is a very bad regression that makes the compiler almost unusable). Maybe having something like a fixed weekly release of betas would be a good idea. If one week there are no more bug reports against the beta, then release that as the final version. Betas are really release candidates, I think it might be a good idea to just start calling them what they are, so people is more tempted to download them and try them. I hope next time it is DMD 2.064rc1, 2.064rc2, etc... -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ -- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) -- Fantasy is as important as wisdom
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
Dicebot, el 31 de May a las 10:01 me escribiste: On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 22:41:08 UTC, Rob T wrote:= Prior to issuing a release like this, it should instead be made public as a stable release candidate with full installer on the downloads page for review by anyone. After the bugs are worked out and some time has elapsed, the stable RC is simply declared stable final and re-released as such with the usual big announcement. --rt I disagree. Anything made public is treated as a release. This is just plain and completely wrong. I don't know many big-ish opensource projects that doesn't have release candidates, and I haven't see any distribution targeted at end users using release candidates. Have you ever see a Linux distribution shipping an rc kernel (that is not only installable by explicit user action) for example? -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ -- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) -- JUGAR COMPULSIVAMENTE ES PERJUDICIAL PARA LA SALUD. -- Casino de Mar del Plata
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
On Friday, 31 May 2013 at 00:28:58 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote: On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 22:04:07 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote: On 5/30/13, Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote: Hello, We seem to have a regression affecting the zipped release: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10215 But I can't recreate this in git-head. It must have been a specific commit the release is based on that introduced this behavior. I don't know how it went through the autotester unnoticed, this is a pretty major bug. Perfect chance to try out the new release process. Patch 2.063 and release 2.063.1. That would be good. The problem is a bit annoying.
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
Damn you D - I'm using up a large chunk of my free time reading the improved and very-readable Change Log. A great update to D and Log. -=mike=-
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
Great work all :-) Many thanks to everyone involved, it really is appreciated. Stewart
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
On Friday, 31 May 2013 at 09:08:17 UTC, Leandro Lucarella wrote: This is just plain and completely wrong. I don't know many big-ish opensource projects that doesn't have release candidates, and I haven't see any distribution targeted at end users using release candidates. Have you ever see a Linux distribution shipping an rc kernel (that is not only installable by explicit user action) for example? Oh, I have meant it completely other way around - if some release is made available through common channels it does not matter if it is called beta or RC, people will just start using it. Remember the issue with UDA syntax? In mature projects RC does not differ that much from actual release other than by extra regression fixes. But for D process is not THAT smooth enough and it will take some time to settle things down.
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
Dicebot, el 31 de May a las 10:11 me escribiste: I want to express my sincere gratitude to everyone who has been involved in doing this release. It is a major breakthrough in D development and release process and a solid step towards truly mature project. Really, a lot of small but important changes have just happened that make this release extra awesome: 1) It was a great pleasure to see real project authors coming to beta list and calling problems found by their code out loud before release is made. It is how it was intended to work and it finally works. 2) Judging by tags in D repos, new release versioning scheme is making its way into being adopted and used. That means that those few regression not caught by beta can be fixed now and release as 2.063.2, no need to wait for 2.064 and suffer. Awesome. About this, AFAIK 2.063.1 is really what's in the release, but the binary version number (and the zip name) have only 2.063. I think that should be fixed and the real version number should be present in both downloadables and binary. Also a micro changelog should be provided, only with the regressions that were fixed. And I don't mean to minimize the incredible breakthrough concerning the release process in this cycle, just pointing out places were we can still do better :) -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ -- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) -- Your success is measured by your ability to finish things
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
Dicebot, el 31 de May a las 13:44 me escribiste: On Friday, 31 May 2013 at 09:08:17 UTC, Leandro Lucarella wrote: This is just plain and completely wrong. I don't know many big-ish opensource projects that doesn't have release candidates, and I haven't see any distribution targeted at end users using release candidates. Have you ever see a Linux distribution shipping an rc kernel (that is not only installable by explicit user action) for example? Oh, I have meant it completely other way around - if some release is made available through common channels it does not matter if it is called beta or RC, people will just start using it. Remember the issue with UDA syntax? The UDAs issue was completely different, there were no betas including UDAs. People using it were just using a development snapshot. In mature projects RC does not differ that much from actual release other than by extra regression fixes. But for D process is not THAT smooth enough and it will take some time to settle things down. This is pretty much how it is now. Only minor regressions can be found in a beta/rc usually. There are no changes in behaviour or new features. -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ -- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) -- All fathers are intimidating. They're intimidating because they are fathers. Once a man has children, for the rest of his life, his attitude is, To hell with the world, I can make my own people. I'll eat whatever I want. I'll wear whatever I want, and I'll create whoever I want. -- Jerry Seinfeld
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
On Friday, 31 May 2013 at 14:08:18 UTC, Leandro Lucarella wrote: In mature projects RC does not differ that much from actual release other than by extra regression fixes. But for D process is not THAT smooth enough and it will take some time to settle things down. This is pretty much how it is now. Only minor regressions can be found in a beta/rc usually. There are no changes in behaviour or new features. Erm, I remember you taking good part in const initialization discussion with all semantics changes and compiler flags added until final decision was set in stone. That is something better done in semi-closed beta in my opinion.
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
On Friday, 31 May 2013 at 14:08:17 UTC, Leandro Lucarella wrote: And I don't mean to minimize the incredible breakthrough concerning the release process in this cycle, just pointing out places were we can still do better :) Btw, I have included minor version number into Arch Linux package version, may suggest other packagers to do the same. Version string shown by DMD front-end itself is not that important as spec shouldn't change within minor versions. Still may be useful though.
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
On Friday, May 31, 2013 10:17:07 Leandro Lucarella wrote: Yeah, and that's exactly what I suggested here several times, and ultimately at DConf :). A step forward has been made in this release, as you said, betas were announced in this NG for the first time, before they were announced only in the beta ML. http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10153 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10154 - Jonathan M Davis
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
Dicebot, el 31 de May a las 16:21 me escribiste: On Friday, 31 May 2013 at 14:08:17 UTC, Leandro Lucarella wrote: And I don't mean to minimize the incredible breakthrough concerning the release process in this cycle, just pointing out places were we can still do better :) Btw, I have included minor version number into Arch Linux package version, may suggest other packagers to do the same. Version string shown by DMD front-end itself is not that important as spec shouldn't change within minor versions. Still may be useful though. For users it is. I want to know if the compiler I'm used is the latest with all critical bugfixes included or not. Remember that if we are going massive, we can't count anymore on user installing their compilers themselves anymore. People will start just doing an apt-get install dmd, or even have it preinstalled, and it should be easy for them to know exactly what release they are using. -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ -- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) -- Y serán tiempos de vanos encuentros entre humano y humano; en que las fieras se comerán entre ellas y después del final; en que se abríran las tierras y los cielos... y en el medio de la nada Racing saldrá campeón. -- Ricardo Vaporeso
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
On Friday, 31 May 2013 at 14:08:17 UTC, Leandro Lucarella wrote: About this, AFAIK 2.063.1 is really what's in the release, but the binary version number (and the zip name) have only 2.063. I think that should be fixed and the real version number should be present in both downloadables and binary. Also a micro changelog should be provided, only with the regressions that were fixed. Of course, that absolutely makes sense and should be implemented by next release if possible. And I don't mean to minimize the incredible breakthrough concerning the release process in this cycle, just pointing out places were we can still do better :) Agreed. Looking back just a couple of releases ago, the situation has improved considerably, but as always there's a lot more improvements that can and should be done. As for the comment that RC's will be treated as stable releases, that's hard to swallow, esp when you consider what's going on now. The current release is worse than a RC because it's not labeled for what it is, people will think it's stable when in fact it's not. I think that it is far more professional and responsible to explicitly state that the version on the download page is a release candidate rather than not saying anything at all. People will get the wrong impression and think that it is a well tested and honed stable release. To reduce potential confusion, we can place RC's in a separate download page. Finally the RC can be a reasonably well tested version that is near completion to minimize the amount of re-work and bug potential. Even if it is misused by people who should know better, it'll still perform reasonably well, and the rest of us tinkerers will greatly benefit from having it. Finally, making RC's available to the public will greatly help increase the quality of the final product and increase the confidence in it for production use. It'll be a win-win for everyone, no question in my mind. --rt
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
Dicebot, el 31 de May a las 16:18 me escribiste: On Friday, 31 May 2013 at 14:08:18 UTC, Leandro Lucarella wrote: In mature projects RC does not differ that much from actual release other than by extra regression fixes. But for D process is not THAT smooth enough and it will take some time to settle things down. This is pretty much how it is now. Only minor regressions can be found in a beta/rc usually. There are no changes in behaviour or new features. Erm, I remember you taking good part in const initialization discussion with all semantics changes and compiler flags added until final decision was set in stone. That is something better done in semi-closed beta in my opinion. Well, that case could really be considered just a regression, something that used to work one way was changed in the beta (but was wrong) and during the beta process was restored (with a better migration/deprecation plan). I still think is quite different from introducing new features or behaviour changes *intentionally*. You are never covered 100%. But anyway, I'm not against having a first iteration with less exposure (i.e. targeted only to DMD devels), but I don't think we even need a release for that. Is enough to say in the MLs hey, we are starting with the release process, everyone check the current master and report any problems and freeze new features merge from there. One everything is slightly tested and at least the devels agree the master is in good shape, we can start shipping proper public release candidates, with the proper changelog, version number, etc. -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ -- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) -- - Tata Dios lo creó a usté solamente pa despertar al pueblo y fecundar las gayinas. - Otro constrasentido divino... Quieren que yo salga de joda con las hembras y después quieren que madrugue. -- Inodoro Pereyra y un gallo
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
On 05/30/2013 08:16 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Hello, We are pleased to announce that dmd 2.063, the reference compiler of the D programming language, is now available for download for OSX, Windows, and a variety of Unixen: The rpm package doesn't make the appropriate links in /usr/lib, so when I try to build a shared library, at runtime it issues ./test1d: error while loading shared libraries: libphobos2.so.0.63: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory I would assume the deb package has the same shortcoming
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 12:19 -0700, Ellery Newcomer wrote: […] I would assume the deb package has the same shortcoming I have not seen this with the deb on Debian Unstable. -- Russel. = Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
On 05/31/2013 12:32 PM, Russel Winder wrote: On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 12:19 -0700, Ellery Newcomer wrote: […] I would assume the deb package has the same shortcoming I have not seen this with the deb on Debian Unstable. just tried it on ubuntu 12.10, and it does the same. are you using -defaultlib=libphobos2.so ?
dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
Hello, We are pleased to announce that dmd 2.063, the reference compiler of the D programming language, is now available for download for OSX, Windows, and a variety of Unixen: http://dlang.org/download.html This release brings unprecedented progress over the previous ones, owing to a explosive increase in collaboration and a concerted ongoing effort to improve process. In all, we've added 260 distinct improvements over the exactly 100 days that passed since 2.062. They address language definition issues, fix bugs in the compiler and standard library, or add new standard library artifacts. For the full story, mosey to the redesigned changelog: http://dlang.org/changelog.html which itemizes all improvements and offers rationale and examples wherever appropriate. We'll be looking forward for the gdc and ldc compilers to adapt the 2.063 reference front-end to the gcc and llvm backends, respectively. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all contributors for this release, which is a massive accomplishment and a resolute step toward fully realizing D's potential. Let's keep up the good work! Til next time, Andrei
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
Discuss and vote on reddit! http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1fc9jt/dmd_2063_the_d_programming_language_reference/ Andrei
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
On Thu, 30 May 2013 11:16:28 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote: For the full story, mosey to the redesigned changelog: http://dlang.org/changelog.html Holy changelog! That is awesome. Please send kudos to whoever took the time to create that. -Steve
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
And hackernews! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5793041 Andrei
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
For the full story, mosey to the redesigned changelog: http://dlang.org/changelog.html Awesome! Thanks.
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
On 5/30/13 11:32 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: And Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/dlang.org/posts/648837555129929 Andrei
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 15:25:39 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: On Thu, 30 May 2013 11:16:28 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote: For the full story, mosey to the redesigned changelog: http://dlang.org/changelog.html Holy changelog! That is awesome. Please send kudos to whoever took the time to create that. That would be Andrej Mitrovic. I agree, he's done a great job with it! It took a really long time to load, though. It's like the whole internet is stopping by to gaze in awe upon our beautiful changelog. :) Lars
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
Am 30.05.2013 17:16, schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu: Hello, We are pleased to announce that dmd 2.063, the reference compiler of the D programming language, is now available for download for OSX, Windows, and a variety of Unixen: http://dlang.org/download.html This release brings unprecedented progress over the previous ones, owing to a explosive increase in collaboration and a concerted ongoing effort to improve process. In all, we've added 260 distinct improvements over the exactly 100 days that passed since 2.062. They address language definition issues, fix bugs in the compiler and standard library, or add new standard library artifacts. For the full story, mosey to the redesigned changelog: http://dlang.org/changelog.html which itemizes all improvements and offers rationale and examples wherever appropriate. We'll be looking forward for the gdc and ldc compilers to adapt the 2.063 reference front-end to the gcc and llvm backends, respectively. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all contributors for this release, which is a massive accomplishment and a resolute step toward fully realizing D's potential. Let's keep up the good work! Til next time, Andrei Great! Getting it now :)
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
Steven Schveighoffer, el 30 de May a las 11:25 me escribiste: On Thu, 30 May 2013 11:16:28 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote: For the full story, mosey to the redesigned changelog: http://dlang.org/changelog.html Holy changelog! That is awesome. I said it already in the beta ML, but I'll repeat it here. Awesome step forward with the changelog, is extremely useful, exactly what a developer updating the compiler want to see. Thanks a lot! -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ -- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) -- Do not get mad with others Because they know more than you It is not their fault
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
On 2013-05-30, 17:16, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: For the full story, mosey to the redesigned changelog: http://dlang.org/changelog.html Kudos to Andrej for this. *This* is how a great changelog looks. -- Simen
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 17:28:49 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote: 30-May-2013 21:16, Simen Kjaeraas пишет: On 2013-05-30, 17:16, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: For the full story, mosey to the redesigned changelog: http://dlang.org/changelog.html Kudos to Andrej for this. *This* is how a great changelog looks. Joins the cheering crowd :) Nice job, Andrej! Agreed, also very satisfying to see ones own bug fixes in there :P
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
Am Thu, 30 May 2013 19:36:59 +0200 schrieb Diggory digg...@googlemail.com: On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 17:28:49 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote: 30-May-2013 21:16, Simen Kjaeraas пишет: On 2013-05-30, 17:16, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: For the full story, mosey to the redesigned changelog: http://dlang.org/changelog.html Kudos to Andrej for this. *This* is how a great changelog looks. Joins the cheering crowd :) Nice job, Andrej! Agreed, also very satisfying to see ones own bug fixes in there :P A nice changelog and a nice release afaics ;-)
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
On 5/30/13, Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote: This release brings unprecedented progress over the previous ones, owing to a explosive increase in collaboration and a concerted ongoing effort to improve process. Agreed. And recently we've had an increase in new contributors as well. Thanks to all for the kind words about the changelog. But don't forget to thank all the contributors which worked hard on fixing those D bugs!
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
What a great release! Great work!
I really like the new langugage changes. One change caught my
attention: #10 The Template This Parameter now changes the
member function qualifier. Does this mean that const/immutable
ranges can implement a useful opSlice? Like
struct MyRange!T {
T[] data;
MyRange!(ElementType!data) opSlice(this T)() {
return MyRange(data);
}
}
So that given the other range primitves this will work:
const myConstRange = MyRange([5, 6, 7, 8]);
foreach(x; myConstRange) {}
Could this be made work with 2.063?
Mafi
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
On Thursday, May 30, 2013 20:00:24 Mafi wrote:
What a great release! Great work!
I really like the new langugage changes. One change caught my
attention: #10 The Template This Parameter now changes the
member function qualifier. Does this mean that const/immutable
ranges can implement a useful opSlice? Like
struct MyRange!T {
T[] data;
MyRange!(ElementType!data) opSlice(this T)() {
return MyRange(data);
}
}
So that given the other range primitves this will work:
const myConstRange = MyRange([5, 6, 7, 8]);
foreach(x; myConstRange) {}
Could this be made work with 2.063?
No, because you still have the fundamental problem that MyRange!T and MyRange!
(const T) are different types which potentially have no relation to one another
aside from the fact that they were generated by the same template. In the
general case, you can't just convert MyRange!T to MyRange!(const T). It only
works with arrays because the compiler understands them.
- Jonathan M Davis
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 15:31:36 UTC, F i L wrote: Steven Schveighoffer wrote: Holy changelog! That is awesome. Please send kudos to whoever took the time to create that. +1, excellent work on that changelog. This is a really nice changelog. The change and rational section is perfect!
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 18:09:22 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Thursday, May 30, 2013 20:00:24 Mafi wrote:
What a great release! Great work!
I really like the new langugage changes. One change caught my
attention: #10 The Template This Parameter now changes the
member function qualifier. Does this mean that const/immutable
ranges can implement a useful opSlice? Like
struct MyRange!T {
T[] data;
MyRange!(ElementType!data) opSlice(this T)() {
return MyRange(data);
}
}
So that given the other range primitves this will work:
const myConstRange = MyRange([5, 6, 7, 8]);
foreach(x; myConstRange) {}
Could this be made work with 2.063?
No, because you still have the fundamental problem that
MyRange!T and MyRange!
(const T) are different types which potentially have no
relation to one another
aside from the fact that they were generated by the same
template. In the
general case, you can't just convert MyRange!T to
MyRange!(const T). It only
works with arrays because the compiler understands them.
- Jonathan M Davis
Well I'm aware of the fact that MyRange!T and MyRange!const(T)
could be unrelated types. But they're not and the author the
range provided a conversion function and called it opSlice().
Foreach shouldn't care if they're related or not, it should just
call opSlice().
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
On 05/30/2013 08:00 PM, Mafi wrote: What a great release! Great work! I really like the new langugage changes. One change caught my attention: #10 The Template This Parameter now changes the member function qualifier. Does this mean that const/immutable ranges can implement a useful opSlice? ... Yes, const/immutable containers are now able to implement a useful opSlice without manual duplication.
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
On Thursday, May 30, 2013 20:39:47 Mafi wrote:
On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 18:09:22 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Thursday, May 30, 2013 20:00:24 Mafi wrote:
What a great release! Great work!
I really like the new langugage changes. One change caught my
attention: #10 The Template This Parameter now changes the
member function qualifier. Does this mean that const/immutable
ranges can implement a useful opSlice? Like
struct MyRange!T {
T[] data;
MyRange!(ElementType!data) opSlice(this T)() {
return MyRange(data);
}
}
So that given the other range primitves this will work:
const myConstRange = MyRange([5, 6, 7, 8]);
foreach(x; myConstRange) {}
Could this be made work with 2.063?
No, because you still have the fundamental problem that
MyRange!T and MyRange!
(const T) are different types which potentially have no
relation to one another
aside from the fact that they were generated by the same
template. In the
general case, you can't just convert MyRange!T to
MyRange!(const T). It only
works with arrays because the compiler understands them.
- Jonathan M Davis
Well I'm aware of the fact that MyRange!T and MyRange!const(T)
could be unrelated types. But they're not and the author the
range provided a conversion function and called it opSlice().
Foreach shouldn't care if they're related or not, it should just
call opSlice().
You still need a way to convert MyRange!T to MyRange!(const T). opSlice won't
do that magically for you. It'll just have to do that internally. And to be
truly useful, you need to be able to go from const(MyRange!T) to
MyRange!(const T). You need tail-const:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5377
I don't see how this enhancement could possibly have any effect on any of that.
At best, it eliminates some code duplication.
- Jonathan M Davis
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
Awesome job to all contributors, it's looking much better, and yes the change log with examples is a very noticeable part of the improvement. I noted some comments about the server being under too much load. Any thought put into adding an official torrent for downloads? That may help ease up on the server load for next release announcement. --rt
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
W dniu 30.05.2013 19:16, Simen Kjaeraas pisze: On 2013-05-30, 17:16, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: For the full story, mosey to the redesigned changelog: http://dlang.org/changelog.html Kudos to Andrej for this. *This* is how a great changelog looks. This is a very pleasant surprise to see such detailed changelog!
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
On 5/30/13, Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote: Hello, We seem to have a regression affecting the zipped release: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10215 But I can't recreate this in git-head. It must have been a specific commit the release is based on that introduced this behavior. I don't know how it went through the autotester unnoticed, this is a pretty major bug.
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 22:04:07 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote: On 5/30/13, Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote: Hello, We seem to have a regression affecting the zipped release: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10215 But I can't recreate this in git-head. It must have been a specific commit the release is based on that introduced this behavior. I don't know how it went through the autotester unnoticed, this is a pretty major bug. Prior to issuing a release like this, it should instead be made public as a stable release candidate with full installer on the downloads page for review by anyone. After the bugs are worked out and some time has elapsed, the stable RC is simply declared stable final and re-released as such with the usual big announcement. --rt
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 22:04:07 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote: On 5/30/13, Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote: Hello, We seem to have a regression affecting the zipped release: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10215 But I can't recreate this in git-head. It must have been a specific commit the release is based on that introduced this behavior. I don't know how it went through the autotester unnoticed, this is a pretty major bug. Perfect chance to try out the new release process. Patch 2.063 and release 2.063.1.
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
On Fri, 31 May 2013 00:41:08 +0200 Rob T al...@ucora.com wrote: On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 22:04:07 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote: On 5/30/13, Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote: Hello, We seem to have a regression affecting the zipped release: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10215 But I can't recreate this in git-head. It must have been a specific commit the release is based on that introduced this behavior. I don't know how it went through the autotester unnoticed, this is a pretty major bug. Prior to issuing a release like this, it should instead be made public as a stable release candidate with full installer on the downloads page for review by anyone. After the bugs are worked out and some time has elapsed, the stable RC is simply declared stable final and re-released as such with the usual big announcement. That's more-or-less what already happens, the only difference is that (to my knowledge) there's no link to it on the downloads page. Although, we probably could use more time between all known regressions in beta fixed and the actual release. Usually it's just the next day.
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
On Friday, 31 May 2013 at 01:36:15 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote: That's more-or-less what already happens, the only difference is that (to my knowledge) there's no link to it on the downloads page. Although, we probably could use more time between all known regressions in beta fixed and the actual release. Usually it's just the next day. Yes, but because there's no link on the main page and no installer, the RC's are effectively closed to the public because only people in the know will go through the trouble to get the RC's and install them. I'm only talking about when the next release gets very to release should something like this be done. It'll make installing a new release far less risky business when it goes final. It'll improve confidence in the final product and further reduce or completely eliminate nasty surprises. IMO doing this will have a similar positive effect like as we've seen with the improved release log. --rt
Re: dmd 2.063 released with 260 bugfixes and enhancements
On Fri, 31 May 2013 03:50:51 +0200 Rob T al...@ucora.com wrote: Yes, but because there's no link on the main page and no installer, the RC's are effectively closed to the public because only people in the know will go through the trouble to get the RC's and install them. I'm only talking about when the next release gets very to release should something like this be done. It'll make installing a new release far less risky business when it goes final. It'll improve confidence in the final product and further reduce or completely eliminate nasty surprises. IMO doing this will have a similar positive effect like as we've seen with the improved release log. --rt Yea, greater visibility for the betas could probably still help. Walter has started announcing them here on D.announce, which is good, but you're right, links on the main page and installers might also help.
