Re: [Issue 3054] New: multithreading GC problem. And Stdio not multithreading safe
What is the expected behavior?
Blockers (was Re: [Issue 3001])
Christopher Wright wrote: --- Comment #1 from Matti Niemenmaa 2009-06-11 09:32:40 PDT --- I'm bumping this to 'blocker' because it's preventing me from using DMD for my project. I think we need clarification on the definition and usage of "blocker". I typically would use it to mean that DMD cannot be released until the bug is fixed. Other people seem to be using it in a more liberal sense. http://d.puremagic.com/issues/page.cgi?id=fields.html#importance says "[b]locks development and/or testing work." It's not entirely clear whether that refers to DMD development or development of anything else using DMD. I think I might've actually used to use your definition of "blocks DMD" but have since lapsed into "blocks my work"... According to the list of all new and old blockers, usage varies: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&bug_severity=blocker&order=bugs.bug_status,bugs.bug_id
[Issue 3065] error: this for variable needs to be Type not Type!(arguments).Type
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3065 --- Comment #1 from Chris Wright 2009-06-11 16:35:33 PDT --- Created an attachment (id=399) --> (http://d.puremagic.com/issues/attachment.cgi?id=399) implements the more general fix described -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3065] New: error: this for variable needs to be Type not Type!(arguments).Type
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3065 Summary: error: this for variable needs to be Type not Type!(arguments).Type Product: D Version: 1.045 Platform: Other OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Keywords: diagnostic Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: DMD AssignedTo: nob...@puremagic.com ReportedBy: dhase...@gmail.com This message is vague because it does not include any template parameters the type may have. It is especially galling because the arguments are included in the second part and not the first. One fix is expression.c:270, check if ad->type is null. If it is, use the current code. Otherwise, use ad->type->toChars rather that ad->toChars. The other fix is to have AggregateDeclaration::toChars return type->toChars if type is not null. Since the latter is more general, I favor it. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
Re: [Issue 3001] Templated types within a mixin not reinstantiated properly for new instantiation
--- Comment #1 from Matti Niemenmaa 2009-06-11 09:32:40 PDT --- I'm bumping this to 'blocker' because it's preventing me from using DMD for my project. I think we need clarification on the definition and usage of "blocker". I typically would use it to mean that DMD cannot be released until the bug is fixed. Other people seem to be using it in a more liberal sense.
[Issue 3057] Add pure annotations to core.stdc.*
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3057 --- Comment #10 from Brad Roberts 2009-06-11 09:47:11 PDT --- (In reply to comment #8) > char* str1=obj.str1; > const char* str2=obj.str2; > auto len1=strlen(str2); > str1[0]=0; > auto len2=strlen(str2); > assert(str1!=str2,"pwnd"); > > GCC has stricter definition of pure function - a function whose arguments are > contained in the stack (no reference types), in D this definition is extended > to include immutable reference types, because they effectively behave as value > types. That's fine. That's not a violation of purity as D has defined it. Purity is defined, roughly, as: 1) does not mutate global state 2) does not depend on global state or: Depends only on it's inputs and mutates only its output. strlen is a classic example of a pure function. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3001] Templated types within a mixin not reinstantiated properly for new instantiation
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3001 Matti Niemenmaa changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |blocker --- Comment #1 from Matti Niemenmaa 2009-06-11 09:32:40 PDT --- I'm bumping this to 'blocker' because it's preventing me from using DMD for my project. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3064] New: Invalid array operation accepted, generates bad code
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3064
Summary: Invalid array operation accepted, generates bad code
Product: D
Version: 1.045
Platform: x86_64
URL: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/arrays.html
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Keywords: accepts-invalid, wrong-code
Severity: major
Priority: P2
Component: DMD
AssignedTo: nob...@puremagic.com
ReportedBy: matti.niemenmaa+dbugzi...@iki.fi
The following compiles in DMD 1.045, but shouldn't:
void main() {
int[] a = [1,2];
int[] b = [1,2];
a[] += b;
assert (b[0] == 1);
assert (b[1] == 2);
assert (a[0] == 2);
assert (a[1] == 4);
}
Currently, the code compiles but the third assertion fails, since DMD generates
code as though b were an int. Note that the following both compiles and doesn't
assert:
void main() {
int[] a = [1,2];
int[] b = [1,2];
a[] += b;
assert (b[0] == 1);
assert (b[1] == 2);
assert (a[0] == 1+*cast(int*)&b);
assert (a[1] == 2+*cast(int*)&b);
}
This is, of course, nonsense.
The error is in the line 'a[] += b': according to
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/arrays.html "[t]he rvalue can be an expression
consisting either of an array slice of the same length and type as the lvalue
or an expression of the element type of the lvalue, in any combination." Thus
the line is incorrect and should read 'a[] += b[]', and that indeed works.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3063] New: Importing std.dateparse and dependent files in DMD 2.030 causes DSSS/Rebuild to fail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3063 Summary: Importing std.dateparse and dependent files in DMD 2.030 causes DSSS/Rebuild to fail Product: D Version: 2.030 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: Phobos AssignedTo: nob...@puremagic.com ReportedBy: jul...@ifeelrandom.com An extraneous comma at the end of line 383 (in the array dateidtab[]) of std/dateparse.d in the Phobos library included with DMD 2.030 (and some previous alpha versions) causes DSSS and Rebuild to fail after going out-of-memory (because they can't adequately generate an error from the incorrect syntax). Because of this, anyone who imports std.dateparse, and in turn std.date, std.file, std.stream etc. will have the compilation of their project fail in DSSS. Removing the extra comma should fix the problem. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3062] -run compiler switch ignores -I option
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3062 Frits van Bommel changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||fvbom...@wxs.nl Resolution||INVALID --- Comment #1 from Frits van Bommel 2009-06-11 06:30:51 PDT --- This is not a bug. -run is special in that it "eats" everything after it. The first argument afterwards is interpreted as a source file, the rest as arguments to pass to the program it compiles to (and are therefore not used by dmd itself). What you want to do is "dmd -W -I.. -run tmp.d". -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3062] New: -run compiler switch ignores -I option
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3062 Summary: -run compiler switch ignores -I option Product: D Version: 2.030 Platform: x86 OS/Version: Windows Status: NEW Keywords: rejects-valid Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: DMD AssignedTo: nob...@puremagic.com ReportedBy: ma...@pochta.ru >dmd -run tmp.d -w -I.. tmp.d(27): Error: module myutil cannot read file 'mylib\myutil.d' line 27: --- import mylib.myutil; --- >dmd tmp.d -I.. -oftmp.exe -w this works fine -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3057] Add pure annotations to core.stdc.*
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3057 --- Comment #8 from Sobirari Muhomori 2009-06-11 04:17:10 PDT --- char* str1=obj.str1; const char* str2=obj.str2; auto len1=strlen(str2); str1[0]=0; auto len2=strlen(str2); assert(str1==str2,"pwnd"); GCC has stricter definition of pure function - a function whose arguments are contained in the stack (no reference types), in D this definition is extended to include immutable reference types, because they effectively behave as value types. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3057] Add pure annotations to core.stdc.*
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3057 --- Comment #9 from Sobirari Muhomori 2009-06-11 04:19:22 PDT --- assert(str1!=str2,"pwnd"); *fixed -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
