[Issue 4172] Improve varargs
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4172 --- Comment #11 from Fawzi Mohamed fa...@gmx.ch 2010-11-30 00:05:15 PST --- This discussion might be relevant http://dsource.org/projects/tango/ticket/1042 should the C ABI be used, then one is better off using compile time varargs (maybe using an explicit extra tuple) to build an old-style vararg call. Thus I would see no point in doing it, deprecating it would be better. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 5286] To avoid a problem with Template syntax
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5286 nfx...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nfx...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from nfx...@gmail.com 2010-11-30 00:56:14 PST --- (In reply to comment #1) I don't agree it is a source of confusion. I don't know anyone who has been confused by it. But I do. I know lots of people that have come to me with this problem, saying it made them almost not use D. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 5291] ref parameter and const/immutable == hole in const system
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5291 nfx...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nfx...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from nfx...@gmail.com 2010-11-30 01:01:24 PST --- This is actually well known. See bug 2095 or bug 4251. I can't believe it hasn't been fixed yet. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4172] Improve varargs
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4172 --- Comment #12 from nfx...@gmail.com 2010-11-30 01:09:11 PST --- (In reply to comment #9) We can revisit this and look into making it more efficient later, but for now I just want to get it working. It's about ease of use, not efficiency. The C ABI is indeed disastrously complex. Just look at the code here: http://www.dsource.org/projects/druntime/browser/trunk/src/core/stdc/stdarg.d The user has to duplicate that code, if he wants to use TypeInfos to unpack the arguments, instead of using compile time types (that va_start) would require. Now think how that would look like on 64 bits. If you're going to use the 64 C ABI for D variadics, you may as well completely remove them from D1 and D2. I don't understand what's so hard about just creating a void*[] on the stack, whose items points to local variables containing the actual argument data. I've done something similar before, when I changed the associative array ABI for by precise GC scanning patch. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4224] alias this and opDispatch
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4224 Simen Kjaeraas simen.kja...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||simen.kja...@gmail.com Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Comment #1 from Simen Kjaeraas simen.kja...@gmail.com 2010-11-30 03:19:42 PST --- *** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of issue 4989 *** -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4989] opDispatch not used when alias this is present
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4989 Simen Kjaeraas simen.kja...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pelle.mans...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Simen Kjaeraas simen.kja...@gmail.com 2010-11-30 03:19:43 PST --- *** Issue 4224 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. *** -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4989] opDispatch not used when alias this is present
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4989 Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Comment #2 from Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com 2010-11-30 05:25:15 PST --- *** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of issue 4224 *** -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4172] Improve varargs
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4172 --- Comment #14 from Andrei Alexandrescu and...@metalanguage.com 2010-11-30 07:50:14 PST --- Should we close this then? Again, for D2 the vararg problem is settled, and I see little reason to put much work on improving D1's varargs only. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 5292] New: Associative array with fixed sized array as value issues a Range violation when inserting new value
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5292 Summary: Associative array with fixed sized array as value issues a Range violation when inserting new value Product: D Version: D2 Platform: x86 OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: major Priority: P2 Component: druntime AssignedTo: s...@invisibleduck.org ReportedBy: chatelet.guilla...@gmail.com --- Comment #0 from Guillaume Chatelet chatelet.guilla...@gmail.com 2010-11-30 15:17:14 PST --- Hi, I'm new to D so this might not be a bug but something I misunderstood about the language. I want to make an associative array of fixed sized array with double as key type. The following code compiles int[2][double] map; map[0] = [1,2]; but fails at runtime with a Range violation Surprisingly enough, the following code also compiles ?! int[1][double] map; map[0] = [1,2,3,4,5]; but fails alike at runtime. It looks like the good way to do this is to use int[][double] map; map[0] = [1,2,3,4,5]; But then relaxing the type constraint... Any ideas ? I'm using Digital Mars D Compiler v2.050 on linux x86. Best regards, Guillaume CHATELET -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 5293] New: std.math: Error: shift by -48 is outside the range 0..32
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5293 Summary: std.math: Error: shift by -48 is outside the range 0..32 Product: D Version: D2 Platform: Other OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: blocker Priority: P2 Component: Phobos AssignedTo: nob...@puremagic.com ReportedBy: ibuc...@ubuntu.com --- Comment #0 from Iain Buclaw ibuc...@ubuntu.com 2010-11-30 22:00:59 PST --- On about line 1328 inside frexp is this line: exp = (ex - F.EXPBIAS) 4 - real.mant_dig + 1; Which produces an error when compiled. Is a blocker for building an ARM cross-compiler. Regards -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 5293] std.math: Error: shift by -48 is outside the range 0..32
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5293 Iain Buclaw ibuc...@ubuntu.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ibuc...@ubuntu.com --- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw ibuc...@ubuntu.com 2010-11-30 22:08:20 PST --- Actually, now I've woken up a bit, I *think* what it should be is: @@ -1345,7 +1345,7 @@ // denormal value *= F.RECIP_EPSILON; ex = vu[F.EXPPOS_SHORT] F.EXPMASK; -exp = (ex - F.EXPBIAS) 4 - real.mant_dig + 1; +exp = ((ex - F.EXPBIAS) 4) - real.mant_dig + 1; vu[F.EXPPOS_SHORT] = cast(ushort)((0x8000 vu[F.EXPPOS_SHORT]) | 0x3FE0); } Can someone confirm? Regards -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
