Here is what i did:
c:\>windbg winsamp.exe
Press F5 to start running, then just close the winsamp.exe.
Couple of secs later windbg crashed with 'The instruction at 0x731444fe
referenced memory at 0x...' while it is unloading the system modules.
winsamp.exe is built from the win32 samp
Alexy Khrabrov wrote:
So I've tried DSSS out of curiosity on tango on Mac with the new
shiny dmd. BTW build-dmd.sh works, so this is a DSSS trial.
I've got the DSSS.pkg by Anders and changed default to dmd-posix in
/usr/etc/rebuild, and culled -version=Posix out of the compile cmd.
Strangely,
So I've tried DSSS out of curiosity on tango on Mac with the new shiny dmd.
BTW build-dmd.sh works, so this is a DSSS trial.
I've got the DSSS.pkg by Anders and changed default to dmd-posix in
/usr/etc/rebuild, and culled -version=Posix out of the compile cmd.
Strangely, it chokes on ar, iss
Sean Kelly Wrote:
> John Simon wrote:
> >
> > Oh man I've tried, believe me.
> > I couldn't figure out how to call the destructors in-place. Also, structs
> > can't have parameter-less constructors
>
> Have you tried just calling delete on the reference? That should do
> what you want. In D2
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:18:17 +0300, dsimcha wrote:
Is doing something like:
auto someInstance = new immutable(SomeClass);
considered to be casting, where all bets are off, or is it supposed to be
safe? If it's supposed to be safe, below is an example of where it's
not.
If it's supposed t
Is doing something like:
auto someInstance = new immutable(SomeClass);
considered to be casting, where all bets are off, or is it supposed to be
safe? If it's supposed to be safe, below is an example of where it's not.
If it's supposed to be like casting, then what's a safe way of creating
immu
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Denis Koroskin <2kor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:14:44 +0300, Tomas Lindquist Olsen
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Michel Fortin
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2009-03-11 04:50:37 -0400, Walter Bright
>>> said:
>>>
The source works j
Walter Bright wrote:
Seems upgrading libc is non-trivial. Now I know.
I was *intrigued* by the error messages, because I wasn't expecting
anything such. I would've thought that either the source works, or
then not. What's "wrong"?
The source works just fine. The binaries don't.
So, if I co
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:14:44 +0300, Tomas Lindquist Olsen
wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Michel Fortin
wrote:
On 2009-03-11 04:50:37 -0400, Walter Bright
said:
The source works just fine. The binaries don't. The new lib distros
don't
include the old lib, and vice versa. Often t
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Michel Fortin
wrote:
> On 2009-03-11 04:50:37 -0400, Walter Bright
> said:
>
>> The source works just fine. The binaries don't. The new lib distros don't
>> include the old lib, and vice versa. Often the missing lib isn't available.
>> It's an ongoing nuisance.
>
On 2009-03-11 04:50:37 -0400, Walter Bright said:
The source works just fine. The binaries don't. The new lib distros
don't include the old lib, and vice versa. Often the missing lib isn't
available. It's an ongoing nuisance.
It isn't like Windows, where the basic api's have been unchanged f
Georg Wrede wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
When I compile dmd with the old lib, I tick off 50% of the linux
people who don't have the old .so installed. When I compile it with
the new lib, I tick off the other 50% who don't have the new one
installed.
I hope that was some
Walter Bright wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
When I compile dmd with the old lib, I tick off 50% of the linux
people who don't have the old .so installed. When I compile it with
the new lib, I tick off the other 50% who don't have the new one
installed.
I hope that was some time ago. If there's
13 matches
Mail list logo
