[Issue 10233] [Tracker] Grammar issues
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10233 Issue 10233 depends on issue 15556, which changed state. Issue 15556 Summary: Script line missing from lexical specification https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15556 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX --
[Issue 15556] Script line missing from lexical specification
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15556 greensunn...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||greensunn...@gmail.com Resolution|--- |WONTFIX --- Comment #2 from greensunn...@gmail.com --- Closing as this is it's specified on the intro. Please feel free to reopen if you think it absolutely needs to be part of the Lex page. --
[Issue 17043] Formatting of std.traits table is pretty unreadable.
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17043 greensunn...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||greensunn...@gmail.com Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME --- Comment #1 from greensunn...@gmail.com --- While not perfect, this at least looks a lot better on my Chrome: https://dlang.org/phobos/std_traits.html Do you still have these issues? If so, please feel free to reopen. --
[Issue 8107] Float literals are not specified as they are implemented
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8107 greensunn...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||pull CC||greensunn...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from greensunn...@gmail.com --- Pull https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/pull/1705 --
[Issue 16659] Clarify mutating while iterating rules
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16659 greensunn...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||pull CC||greensunn...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from greensunn...@gmail.com --- Pull https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/pull/1704 --
[Issue 16985] Enable runnable unittest on dlang.org after 2.073 release
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16985 greensunn...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED CC||greensunn...@gmail.com Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #1 from greensunn...@gmail.com --- Done. http://dlang.org/blog/2017/03/08/editable-and-runnable-doc-examples-on-dlang-org/ --
[Issue 17053] [Programming in D for C Programmers] C supports array initialization; section is misleading
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17053 greensunn...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||greensunn...@gmail.com Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME --- Comment #1 from greensunn...@gmail.com --- > C99 fixes the issue: The docs state this, don't they? Please feel free to reopen this if you disagree or send a PR to fix it directly ;-) --
[Issue 17052] [Programming in D for C Programmers] C supports designated initialization; section is misleading
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17052 greensunn...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||greensunn...@gmail.com Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME --- Comment #1 from greensunn...@gmail.com --- > Designated initializers in C99 fix that issue. The docs state this, don't they? Please feel free to reopen this if you disagree or send a PR to fix it directly ;-) --
[Issue 17051] [Programming in D for C Programmers] C supports anonymous structs; section is misleading.
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17051 greensunn...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||greensunn...@gmail.com Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME --- Comment #1 from greensunn...@gmail.com --- > Before C11 C didn't allow for anonymous structs or unions, which meant that > dummy member names were necessary: The docs state this, don't they? Please feel free to reopen if you disagree or send a PR to correct this yourself. --
[Issue 17121] DDoc documentation is out of date
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17121 greensunn...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||pull CC||greensunn...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from greensunn...@gmail.com --- pull https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/pull/1703 though I am not sure on the best solution for this. --
[Issue 16147] Provide shiny 404 error pages
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16147 --- Comment #9 from Vladimir Panteleev --- Yes, fixed by https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/pull/1603 --
[Issue 16147] Provide shiny 404 error pages
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16147 greensunn...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME --- Comment #8 from greensunn...@gmail.com --- This works fine for me, e.g. http://dlang.org/foo http://dlang.org/foo/bar/foo And it looks like the resource URLs are set properly in the HTML: --
[Issue 16198] Language specification should have a page about concurrency
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16198 --- Comment #2 from greensunn...@gmail.com --- The Dlang Tour also offers a couple of helpful pages: https://tour.dlang.org/tour/en/multithreading/thread-local-storage --
[Issue 17134] std.file.append documentation is incomplete
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17134 greensunn...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||greensunn...@gmail.com Component|dlang.org |phobos Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #1 from greensunn...@gmail.com --- This has been fixed in https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/5165 Please reopen if you disagree. --
[Issue 17159] Behavior of unions at compile time is not documented
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17159 greensunn...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||pull CC||greensunn...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from greensunn...@gmail.com --- pull https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/pull/1702 --
[Issue 17182] dconf.org's thankyou page is missing
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17182 greensunn...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||greensunn...@gmail.com Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME --- Comment #3 from greensunn...@gmail.com --- The page got eventually deployed and since March (https://github.com/dlang/dconf.org/pull/153), dconf.org has auto-deployment (though due to people using manual rsync & dmd using up the free Travis slots, there were some issues during dconf). Anyhow I am closing this issue as it got deployed and hopefully gets copied over for 2018. --
[Issue 17224] Foreach documentation still refers to TypeTuples, rather than AliasSequences
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17224 greensunn...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||pull CC||greensunn...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from greensunn...@gmail.com --- pull https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/pull/1701 --
[Issue 17262] Better docs for rdmd
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17262 greensunn...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||pull CC||greensunn...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from greensunn...@gmail.com --- pull https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/pull/1700/files -of/-od is already documented in the DMD documentation, so I simple made it easier to reach. --
[Issue 17265] WithStatement: Find better Example for what "with" really does
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17265 greensunn...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||pull CC||greensunn...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from greensunn...@gmail.com --- pull https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/pull/1699 --
[Issue 17305] [SPEC] ABI page still has references to D1 Phobos
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17305 greensunn...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||pull CC||greensunn...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from greensunn...@gmail.com --- pull https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/pull/1698 I went with the bare minimal solution, feel free to add more yourself ;-) --
[Issue 17322] Add Magikcraft to organizations using D
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17322 greensunn...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||greensunn...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from greensunn...@gmail.com --- Pull https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/pull/1696 --
[Issue 17501] Runnable unittest problem with AST rewrite
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17501 --- Comment #2 from github-bugzi...@puremagic.com --- Commits pushed to master at https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/commit/eae2ed4075709164d7d2de1682970f9b1c1a2d9a Fix Issue 17501 - Runnable unittest problem with AST rewrite https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/commit/5bebaa7421e3cdb543c3d1f90c6856902a3fc561 Merge pull request #1693 from wilzbach/enable-tests Fix Issue 17501 - Runnable unittest problem with AST rewrite merged-on-behalf-of: Vladimir Panteleev --
[Issue 17501] Runnable unittest problem with AST rewrite
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17501 github-bugzi...@puremagic.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --
[Issue 17480] [Downloads]
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17480 greensunn...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||pull CC||greensunn...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from greensunn...@gmail.com --- PR to fix the release content listings and make them more prominent https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/pull/1694 We could probably also state the fact that DUB is included directly on downloads.html --
[Issue 17501] Runnable unittest problem with AST rewrite
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17501 greensunn...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||pull CC||greensunn...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from greensunn...@gmail.com --- Thanks a lot for reporting! Pull: https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/pull/1693 --
[Issue 17506] New: [REG2.075] @disable constructor requires members to be initialized
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17506
Issue ID: 17506
Summary: [REG2.075] @disable constructor requires members to be
initialized
Product: D
Version: D2
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: NEW
Severity: regression
Priority: P1
Component: dmd
Assignee: nob...@puremagic.com
Reporter: greensunn...@gmail.com
cat > main.d << CODE
struct TreeMap
{
this() @disable;
this(TTree tree) { this.tree = tree; }
TTree tree;
}
struct TTree
{
this() @disable;
this(int foo) {}
~this() {}
}
void main()
{
auto k = TreeMap(TTree(1));
}
CODE
$ main.d
treemap.d(3): Error: field tree must be initialized in constructor
--
[Issue 17505] New: [REG2.075] @safe constructor requires the deconstructor to be safe as well
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17505
Issue ID: 17505
Summary: [REG2.075] @safe constructor requires the
deconstructor to be safe as well
Product: D
Version: D2
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: NEW
Severity: regression
Priority: P1
Component: dmd
Assignee: nob...@puremagic.com
Reporter: greensunn...@gmail.com
cat > main.d << CODE
struct Array
{
int[] _payload;
~this()
{
import core.stdc.stdlib : free;
free(_payload.ptr);
}
}
class Scanner
{
Array arr;
this() @safe {}
}
CODE
$ dmd -main
main.d(14): Error: @safe constructor 'main.Scanner.this' cannot call @system
destructor 'main.Scanner.~this'
--
[Issue 17491] Compiles on invalid: *&s.init.var is not an lvalue
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17491 github-bugzi...@puremagic.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --
[Issue 17491] Compiles on invalid: *&s.init.var is not an lvalue
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17491 --- Comment #3 from github-bugzi...@puremagic.com --- Commits pushed to master at https://github.com/dlang/dmd https://github.com/dlang/dmd/commit/84e6960563480109ea5d153ae2732e441ba88bd5 fix Issue 17491 - Compiles on invalid: *&s.init.var is not an lvalue https://github.com/dlang/dmd/commit/becedffcf050f7d4b19c97dcd1752cec19d73176 Merge pull request #6893 from ibuclaw/issue17491 fix Issue 17491 - Compiles on invalid: *&s.init.var is not an lvalue --
[Issue 17429] [scope] each scope class references adds another delete call
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17429 github-bugzi...@puremagic.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --
[Issue 17422] [scope] class reference not initialized as scope variable
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17422 github-bugzi...@puremagic.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --
[Issue 17429] [scope] each scope class references adds another delete call
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17429 --- Comment #1 from github-bugzi...@puremagic.com --- Commit pushed to master at https://github.com/dlang/dmd https://github.com/dlang/dmd/commit/377c2dd08f00db679261689b93aad67a40bd7727 fix Issue 17429 - [scope] each scope class references adds another delete call - only call delete for classes allocated on the stack (or with custom allocator), not just for any scope class reference --
[Issue 17422] [scope] class reference not initialized as scope variable
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17422 --- Comment #2 from github-bugzi...@puremagic.com --- Commits pushed to master at https://github.com/dlang/dmd https://github.com/dlang/dmd/commit/ad041aa29e02ed1cca2d00f2553ac16a86762bfa fix Issue 17422 - class reference not initialized as scope variable - infer scope for class references to prevent escaping - those are just normal class references with scope to prevent escaping - only `scope o = new Object` remains special, because it uses the fact that the class ref cannot be escaped to allocate the instance on the stack https://github.com/dlang/dmd/commit/6ad2e6d91b84a00703900c2b6e3a9e9ab03f1e6b Merge pull request #6826 from MartinNowak/fix17422 [scope] fix Issue 17422 - class reference not initialized as scope variable --
[Issue 14894] mangling of mixins and lambdas is not unique and depends on compilation flags
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14894 --- Comment #11 from uplink.co...@googlemail.com --- (In reply to Martin Nowak from comment #10) > (In reply to uplink.coder from comment #9) > > The way I see forward is to not use a number. > > But to disambiguate by a reproducible hash. > > Yes! What to hash though? Source code, tokens, parsed AST? Guess the latter > would remain identical even after reformatting which is a nice property (but > not an important one). We need AST-Node hashing anyhow. but that won't fix the .di files problem, as the hash will be different from the impl or does the source have to be available ? If it does then we stand a chance. This will also auto-magically de-duplicate lambdas with the same bodys. --
[Issue 17502] [REG2.064] Out contract in class method causes dmd segfault.
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17502 Vladimir Panteleev changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||pull --- Comment #3 from Vladimir Panteleev --- PR by @Burgos: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6906 --
[Issue 17502] [REG2.064] Out contract in class method causes dmd segfault.
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17502 Vladimir Panteleev changed: What|Removed |Added CC||thecybersha...@gmail.com Summary|Out contract in class |[REG2.064] Out contract in |method causes dmd segfault. |class method causes dmd ||segfault. Severity|normal |regression --- Comment #2 from Vladimir Panteleev --- Introduced in https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/2383 --
[Issue 17474] non-property being treated as a property
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17474 --- Comment #11 from Eyal --- (In reply to anonymous4 from comment #10) > (In reply to Eyal from comment #8) > > Requiring @property on a for a=b to invoke a(b) sounds much more reasonable > > than the opposite. > > > > I don't see how a=b invoking a(b) when a isn't a @property is justifiable. > > It reduces code littering (and it's not easier to check). UFCS relies on > property syntax too. What code littering does it reduce? @property is not littering, it is informative. UCFS doesn't rely on property syntax, lack of parenthesis relies on property syntax - but not on *setter* syntax, just *getter*. So I repeat: There is no justification for x=y calling x(y) when x is not a @property. --
[Issue 17504] Passing templated varargs to array varargs base class constructor segfaults
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17504
ag0ae...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC||ag0ae...@gmail.com
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #1 from ag0ae...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Marco de Wild from comment #0)
> this(MyType[] objs...)
> {
> _objs = objs;
> }
That's invalid code. The elements of `objs` are on the stack. `objs` is only
valid during the constructor call. Later, `_objs` will contain garbage
pointers. Dereferencing them then leads to a segfault.
The spec says:
"An implementation may construct the object or array instance on the stack.
Therefore, it is an error to refer to that instance after the variadic function
has returned"
- https://dlang.org/spec/function.html#typesafe_variadic_functions
I'm closing this as invalid. Just reopen if I'm missing something.
However, the code should be rejected when you make the constructor `@safe`. It
isn't. There's already an open issue for that: issue 5212.
--
[Issue 17503] is-expression pattern in static if matches too many types
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17503
ag0ae...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ag0ae...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from ag0ae...@gmail.com ---
Reduced:
struct Vector(T, int N) {}
static assert(!is(Vector!(int, 3) == Vector!(float, N), int N));
/* fails; should pass */
--
[Issue 17504] New: Passing templated varargs to array varargs base class constructor segfaults
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17504
Issue ID: 17504
Summary: Passing templated varargs to array varargs base class
constructor segfaults
Product: D
Version: D2
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: minor
Priority: P1
Component: druntime
Assignee: nob...@puremagic.com
Reporter: nanaya...@gmail.com
Created attachment 1649
--> https://issues.dlang.org/attachment.cgi?id=1649&action=edit
Reduction of the segfault
I have a templated wrapper class (TC) that inherits from its template argument.
The base class's (BC) constructor arguments are unknown, therefore the
constructor of TC is templated with
this(Args...)(MyType wrappedObj, Args args)
{
super(args);
}
and calls its base constructor using args.
When the base constructor has varargs
this(MyType[] objs...)
{
_objs = objs;
}
and TC's templated constructor is called using varargs
auto tc = new TC(wrappedObj, obj1, obj2); // segfaults
any attempt at accessing the objects in _objs by iterating (std.algorithm or
foreach) segfaults (see attachment). Calling _objs[0] and accessing its members
is ok.
A workaround is passing in an array instead of varargs, therefore marked as
minor.
auto tc = new TC(wrappedObj, [obj1, obj2]); // ok
The full code is in attachment.
(Please forgive me if I mixed up a bit of terminology.)
--
[Issue 17503] New: is-expression pattern in static if matches too many types
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17503
Issue ID: 17503
Summary: is-expression pattern in static if matches too many
types
Product: D
Version: D2
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P1
Component: dmd
Assignee: nob...@puremagic.com
Reporter: alex.ble...@gmail.com
In the following example, the static if branch is taken for both T=Vector!(int,
N) and T=Vector!(float, N), while it should only match Vector!(float,N)
-
struct Vector(T, int N)
{}
alias vec3 = Vector!(float, 3);
alias ivec3 = Vector!(int, 3);
struct Test(T)
{
void test()
{
static if (is(T == Vector!(float, N), int N)) {
pragma(msg, typeof(this).stringof, "..");
}
}
}
alias TestVec3 = Test!vec3;
alias TestIVec3 = Test!ivec3;
void main()
{
TestVec3 tv3;
TestIVec3 tiv3;
}
-
Compiler output:
Test!(Vector!(float, 3))..
Test!(Vector!(int, 3))..
-
Expected Compiler output:
Test!(Vector!(float, 3))..
-
Link:
http://asm.dlang.org/#compilers:!((compiler:dmd2071,options:'',sourcez:FAZwLgTgrgxmAEA1ApnA9hAFAFQDTwEsA7BAOQEp5gBvAX2GAEMAbAxkeAN1QGZ4BeJKjAYAhJgBmzNIzD4e5ANxNW7Qtxh9BKdBHHE58BctCRYCbMnA5yNYPC5oCAE3hgrYTLYfV7D%2BOCyBDCEEvCYBCA4AtrCYpLSsvgU%2BAbwFJS%2B/v4ADhCMAOYAtoyYRSAF%2BGAAnjnIaBKYYAAWkeQAdOAQxAUN%2BABE7e39SlTZ9A709CpsHJbgOlrw82CiGjzKLLPLHgCSiwI74KIE6yacTq4lxF52DisHYJwbfiv7vG6nL7R%3D%3D)),filterAsm:(binary:!t),version:3
--
[Issue 17472] [Reg 2.075] typeof(stdin) is no longer a File
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17472 --- Comment #5 from anonymous4 --- (In reply to Andrei Alexandrescu from comment #3) > light or no runtime That rules out druntime and phobos for good. --
[Issue 17502] Out contract in class method causes dmd segfault.
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17502
Ivan Kazmenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ga...@mail.ru
--- Comment #1 from Ivan Kazmenko ---
Fails with previous releases, to at least 2.064.2. Between 2.068.2 and 2.069.0
(frontend translated into D), the error diagnostic changes.
The "in {}" line can be dropped, but class, auto return type, and "out" without
parameters seem to all be important.
--
[Issue 15007] core.atomic match C++11
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15007 z.p.gaal.de...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://issues.dlang.org/sh ||ow_bug.cgi?id=13713 --
[Issue 13713] core.atomic should use compiler intrinsics
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13713 z.p.gaal.de...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://issues.dlang.org/sh ||ow_bug.cgi?id=15007 --
[Issue 15007] core.atomic match C++11
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15007 z.p.gaal.de...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Hardware|x86_64 |All OS|Windows |All --
[Issue 17474] non-property being treated as a property
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17474 --- Comment #10 from anonymous4 --- (In reply to Stefan Koch from comment #5) > I am pretty sure the last thing you want is a function to be invoked as a > setter property if it returns an Lvalue. AFAIK it's deliberate as this way you can implement getter and setter with one function. The right semantics here will be difficult to define due to sheer number of reasons why a(b) may fail to compile and which of them should be skipped and which shouldn't. (In reply to Eyal from comment #8) > Requiring @property on a for a=b to invoke a(b) sounds much more reasonable > than the opposite. > > I don't see how a=b invoking a(b) when a isn't a @property is justifiable. It reduces code littering (and it's not easier to check). UFCS relies on property syntax too. --
[Issue 13713] core.atomic should use compiler intrinsics
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13713 Russel Winder changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rus...@winder.org.uk --
[Issue 15007] core.atomic match C++11
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15007 Russel Winder changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rus...@winder.org.uk --
[Issue 15007] core.atomic match C++11
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15007 --- Comment #2 from z.p.gaal.de...@gmail.com --- please see also https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13713 --
[Issue 15007] core.atomic match C++11
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15007 --- Comment #1 from z.p.gaal.de...@gmail.com --- Also plese take a look at this forum post: https://forum.dlang.org/thread/muisadtexibcuudzj...@forum.dlang.org What is the state of fences and compiler optimization? Is it guaranteed that, no instruction is moved increctly before/after a fence/atomic operation ? --
[Issue 15007] core.atomic match C++11
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15007 z.p.gaal.de...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||z.p.gaal.de...@gmail.com --
[Issue 4559] Disallowing single semicolons
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4559 --- Comment #8 from Nemanja Boric <4bur...@gmail.com> --- Poor dlang bot got confused by my initial typo in the commit message (wrong issue referenced), but the commits are pushed to master: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6886 --
[Issue 17502] Out contract in class method causes dmd segfault.
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17502 drug007 changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[The D Bug Tracker] |Out contract in class ||method causes dmd segfault. --
[Issue 17502] New: [The D Bug Tracker]
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17502
Issue ID: 17502
Summary: [The D Bug Tracker]
Product: D
Version: D2
Hardware: All
URL: http://dlang.org/
OS: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: dmd
Assignee: nob...@puremagic.com
Reporter: drug2...@bk.ru
If a method has out contract it causes dmd segfault.
```
class Foo
{
auto foo()
in {}
//out {} // uncomment it to get dmd segfault
body{}
}
void main()
{
auto foo = new Foo();
foo.foo();
}
```
--
[Issue 17501] New: Runnable unittest problem with AST rewrite
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17501
Issue ID: 17501
Summary: Runnable unittest problem with AST rewrite
Product: D
Version: D2
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P1
Component: dlang.org
Assignee: nob...@puremagic.com
Reporter: petar.p.ki...@gmail.com
I noticed that there are cases where the assert -> writeln rewrite does
something wrong. Here's an example:
http://dlang.org/phobos-prerelease/std_algorithm_iteration#.splitter.3
import std.algorithm.comparison : equal;
import std.range.primitives : front;
writeln(a); // ' '
int[] a = [ 1, 2, 0, 0, 3, 0, 4, 5, 0 ];
int[][] w = [ [1, 2], [], [3], [4, 5], [] ];
writeln(a); // 0
a = [ 0 ];
writeln(a); // 0
a = [ 0, 1 ];
writeln(a); // 0
w = [ [0], [1], [2] ];
writeln(a.front); // 1
And the actual unittest:
import std.algorithm.comparison : equal;
import std.range.primitives : front;
assert(equal(splitter!(a => a == ' ')("hello world"), [ "hello", "", "world"
]));
int[] a = [ 1, 2, 0, 0, 3, 0, 4, 5, 0 ];
int[][] w = [ [1, 2], [], [3], [4, 5], [] ];
assert(equal(splitter!(a => a == 0)(a), w));
a = [ 0 ];
assert(equal(splitter!(a => a == 0)(a), [ (int[]).init, (int[]).init ]));
a = [ 0, 1 ];
assert(equal(splitter!(a => a == 0)(a), [ [], [1] ]));
w = [ [0], [1], [2] ];
assert(equal(splitter!(a => a.front == 1)(w), [ [[0]], [[2]] ]));
--
[Issue 15580] Coverage Reports Should Not Count Lines in Unit Test Blocks
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15580 Martin Nowak changed: What|Removed |Added CC||c...@dawg.eu --- Comment #1 from Martin Nowak --- That's debatable, knowing what unittests ran is also useful. Different ratios for overall coverage would make sense though. --
[Issue 14894] mangling of mixins and lambdas is not unique and depends on compilation flags
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14894 --- Comment #10 from Martin Nowak --- (In reply to uplink.coder from comment #9) > The way I see forward is to not use a number. > But to disambiguate by a reproducible hash. Yes! What to hash though? Source code, tokens, parsed AST? Guess the latter would remain identical even after reformatting which is a nice property (but not an important one). --
