[Issue 4108] [ICE] __traits(isStaticArray) on empty static array
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4108
Walter Bright changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugzi...@digitalmars.com
--- Comment #1 from Walter Bright 2010-04-27
22:37:47 PDT ---
The same error is produced by:
void foo(int[0]);
void main() {
int[0] arr;
foo(arr);
}
It has nothing to do with __traits.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4130] DMD crashes if it has to compile a project which is too complex
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4130 --- Comment #2 from Torsten 2010-04-27 21:10:12 PDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > Is it possible you could run it under gdb and see where it is dying? I tried this but there are no debug symbols. I wounder if the memory address can help you (gdb 6.8): (no debugging symbols found) (no debugging symbols found) (no debugging symbols found) (no debugging symbols found) (no debugging symbols found) (no debugging symbols found) Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. 0x081427b7 in ?? () (gdb) quit The program is running. Exit anyway? (y or n) [answered Y; input not from terminal] -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4081] cannot compile the dmd on FreeBSD 8
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4081 Brad Roberts changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #609|application/octet-stream|text/plain mime type|| Attachment #609 is|0 |1 patch|| -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4081] cannot compile the dmd on FreeBSD 8
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4081 --- Comment #2 from Walter Bright 2010-04-27 17:40:17 PDT --- changeset 454 -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4081] cannot compile the dmd on FreeBSD 8
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4081 --- Comment #1 from Walter Bright 2010-04-27 17:29:46 PDT --- Good to see another FreeBSD user! -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4131] break does not work correctly with foreach and associative arrays
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4131 bearophile_h...@eml.cc changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bearophile_h...@eml.cc --- Comment #1 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2010-04-27 15:39:44 PDT --- This bug is present in dmd 2.043, and it's absent in dmd 1.058 and 1.042. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4131] New: break does not work correctly with foreach and associative arrays
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4131
Summary: break does not work correctly with foreach and
associative arrays
Product: D
Version: unspecified
Platform: Other
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: DMD
AssignedTo: nob...@puremagic.com
ReportedBy: lud...@informatik.uni-luebeck.de
--- Comment #0 from S�nke Ludwig 2010-04-27
15:01:57 PDT ---
Issuing a break statement will not cause the foreach loop to exit but instead
will perform another iteration before jumping out.
---
import std.stdio;
void main()
{
int[int] test;
test[0] = 0;
test[1] = 1;
bool flag = false;
foreach( k, v; test){
writefln("loop: %s %s", k, v);
assert(!flag); // fails on second loop!
flag = true;
break; // should exit here after the first iteration
}
}
---
output:
---
loop: 0 0
loop: 1 1
core.exception.asserter...@test(12): Assertion failure
---
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3863] Various errors and ICE(todt.c) for struct constructors with ellipses
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3863 --- Comment #6 from S�nke Ludwig 2010-04-27 14:13:23 PDT --- Just wanted to note that this bug actually provides the only way to work around issue 3801. So please, do not fix or change this into an error message before implementing "struct.member[] = x;" or "struct.member[i] = x;" for CTFE. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3849] [missing error] Array literal length doesn't match
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3849 --- Comment #5 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2010-04-27 13:00:32 PDT --- Once the length test is in place, to avoid adding the trailing empty items a very simple ... trailing syntax can be introduced (partially from a suggestion by Michel Fortin): immutable ubyte _ctype[256] = [ _CTL,_CTL,_CTL,_CTL,_CTL,_CTL,_CTL,_CTL, _CTL,_CTL|_SPC,_CTL|_SPC,_CTL|_SPC,_CTL|_SPC,_CTL|_SPC,_CTL,_CTL, _CTL,_CTL,_CTL,_CTL,_CTL,_CTL,_CTL,_CTL, _CTL,_CTL,_CTL,_CTL,_CTL,_CTL,_CTL,_CTL, _SPC|_BLK,_PNC,_PNC,_PNC,_PNC,_PNC,_PNC,_PNC, _PNC,_PNC,_PNC,_PNC,_PNC,_PNC,_PNC,_PNC, _DIG|_HEX,_DIG|_HEX,_DIG|_HEX,_DIG|_HEX,_DIG|_HEX, _DIG|_HEX,_DIG|_HEX,_DIG|_HEX,_DIG|_HEX,_DIG|_HEX, _PNC,_PNC,_PNC,_PNC,_PNC,_PNC, _PNC,_UC|_HEX,_UC|_HEX,_UC|_HEX,_UC|_HEX,_UC|_HEX,_UC|_HEX,_UC, _UC,_UC,_UC,_UC,_UC,_UC,_UC,_UC, _UC,_UC,_UC,_UC,_UC,_UC,_UC,_UC, _UC,_UC,_UC,_PNC,_PNC,_PNC,_PNC,_PNC, _PNC,_LC|_HEX,_LC|_HEX,_LC|_HEX,_LC|_HEX,_LC|_HEX,_LC|_HEX,_LC, _LC,_LC,_LC,_LC,_LC,_LC,_LC,_LC, _LC,_LC,_LC,_LC,_LC,_LC,_LC,_LC, _LC,_LC,_LC,_PNC,_PNC,_PNC,_PNC,_CTL, ... ]; This is first of all explicit, and it doesn't clash with C or C99 syntax, it's easy to understand, short, easy to write, compatible with other D syntax. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3987] [gdb] Invalid DWARF output for function pointers
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3987 --- Comment #16 from Walter Bright 2010-04-27 12:37:33 PDT --- Robert, I should add that I'm very indebted to you for figuring out what was going wrong with the dwarf output. Thank you! -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3841] silent implicit cast from floating point to integral in += etc. operators
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3841 --- Comment #1 from Andrei Alexandrescu 2010-04-27 11:53:59 PDT --- Hell yeah it is major. Thanks Don. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4130] DMD crashes if it has to compile a project which is too complex
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4130 Walter Bright changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bugzi...@digitalmars.com --- Comment #1 from Walter Bright 2010-04-27 11:44:23 PDT --- Is it possible you could run it under gdb and see where it is dying? -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3987] [gdb] Invalid DWARF output for function pointers
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3987 --- Comment #15 from Robert Clipsham 2010-04-27 19:43:59 BST --- Using r452 all my mini tests are working, I haven't tried QtD or other real apps, the test cases I got from them seem to work though :) -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 2935] ICE(out.c) using struct with constructor as function default argument
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2935 --- Comment #9 from Walter Bright 2010-04-27 11:37:45 PDT --- changeset 452 -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 2437] ICE(tocsym.c, !needThis()) - default struct argument
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2437 --- Comment #8 from Walter Bright 2010-04-27 11:37:19 PDT --- changeset 452 -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 2606] string literals unnecessarily prone to wide conversion
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2606 Don changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clugd...@yahoo.com.au --- Comment #1 from Don 2010-04-27 11:31:01 PDT --- I think this is the same as bug 2367 (although with a stronger example). -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4117] rev 439 compilation error
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4117 Don changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||clugd...@yahoo.com.au Resolution||FIXED -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4011] Incorrect function overloading using mixins
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4011 Don changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3841] silent implicit cast from floating point to integral in += etc. operators
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3841 Don changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||accepts-invalid CC||clugd...@yahoo.com.au Version|unspecified |1.00 Severity|normal |major -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 2600] Nonuniform treatment of built-in types and user-defined types in value syntax
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2600 Don changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clugd...@yahoo.com.au Version|unspecified |2.040 Severity|normal |enhancement -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 1904] wrong protection lookup for private template functions
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1904 Don changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clugd...@yahoo.com.au Version|unspecified |0.178 --- Comment #2 from Don 2010-04-27 11:17:10 PDT --- This applies even to ancient versions of D1. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3849] [missing error] Array literal length doesn't match
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3849 --- Comment #4 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2010-04-27 10:09:45 PDT --- Walter doesn't want to add the int[$] arr = [...]; syntax: > D is full of syntax, at some point adding more and more syntax to deal > with more and more obscure cases is not a net improvement. > There's a point of diminishing returns. I still think that when a static array literal is given, the compiler has to enforce the length of an array literal to be the same as the specified length. In the uncommon situations where a partial array specification is necessary, the programmer can just add leading empty items. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4130] New: DMD crashes if it has to compile a project which is too complex
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4130 Summary: DMD crashes if it has to compile a project which is too complex Product: D Version: 1.057 Platform: x86 OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: major Priority: P2 Component: DMD AssignedTo: nob...@puremagic.com ReportedBy: globe13.trotte...@gmx.de --- Comment #0 from Torsten 2010-04-27 09:47:18 PDT --- I am trying to compile a medium sized project of roughly 380 files (using phobos). As long as I keep the total code length (number of lines) under a limit (yet unknown) dmd creates the executeables sucessfully. However, if I add some functions to some classes or if I add some new files, it gives a segmentation fault after roughly 5 minutes of compiling which consumes 350 MiB of memory. If I run dmd with -v, the last lines it prints are: function equals function notEquals function greater function lesser function greaterOrEqual function lesserOrEqual function like function notIn function In function this function saveToDB function saveToDB function loadFromDBAsString Segmentation fault As far as I can see, the gcc for linking is not called yet. I have the same problem with older versions of dmd, however I cannot try dmd2. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 2437] ICE(tocsym.c, !needThis()) - default struct argument
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2437 Walter Bright changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bugzi...@digitalmars.com --- Comment #7 from Walter Bright 2010-04-27 09:06:41 PDT --- I think the correct solution is identified in 2935. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 2935] ICE(out.c) using struct with constructor as function default argument
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2935 --- Comment #8 from Walter Bright 2010-04-27 09:04:17 PDT --- The problem is the code here in expression.c funcParameters(): arg = p->defaultArg; arg = arg->copy(); <-- Danger, Will Robinson! arg = arg->resolveLoc(loc, sc); arguments->push(arg); The arg->copy() is the problem, as it will copy any DeclarationExp's resulting in multiple declarations with the same name. A correct fix will be to do what DeclarationExp::doInline() does, which is for any non-static declarations, create another declaration. A new expression tree walker has to be built to accomplish this. Perhaps a good approach is to create a generic walker that accepts a lambda function to operate on each node. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 2935] ICE(out.c) using struct with constructor as function default argument
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2935
Walter Bright changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugzi...@digitalmars.com
--- Comment #7 from Walter Bright 2010-04-27
08:49:55 PDT ---
The problem is a semantic one. Default arguments are evaluated in the context
of the function declaration, not where it's used. So, the temporary generated
by the constructor is created in global space!
The patch tries to force it back into the function scope, but that doesn't work
as you can see if you change foo() to:
void foo() { bar(); bar(); }
as it fails trying to allocate the same symbol twice. Not sure what the correct
solution is at the moment.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3987] [gdb] Invalid DWARF output for function pointers
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3987 Walter Bright changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bugzi...@digitalmars.com --- Comment #14 from Walter Bright 2010-04-27 07:01:51 PDT --- I think I figured out what was going wrong with the function type caching, and came up with a corrected fix. Changeset 451. Please give it a try. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
