g wrote:
What's up with:
deferring sigaction_t
When compiling with dmd 2.039 on Linux.
What does it means?
It's a debugging printf I mistakenly left in. You can nop it out with a
binary editor if you want, or apply the patches in svn to get rid of it
and rebuild the compiler, or ignore it.
What's up with:
deferring sigaction_t
When compiling with dmd 2.039 on Linux.
What does it means?
Hello Lutger,
On 01/07/2010 10:50 PM, Brien wrote:
Don Wrote:
Ok, that's good to know. I assumed because D billed itself as a
"systems" programming language that performance would be paramount.
He's talking about his converter program, not about D!
Oops, sorry about the misinterpretatio
Hello Brien,
BCS Wrote:
That might be viable but the system was never intended for speed (its
intent was as a way to escape needing Mono on a non Windows system)
so you would be stuck having to write D code in C#.
Ok, that's good to know. I assumed because D billed itself as a
"systems" pro
On 01/07/2010 11:59 PM, Lutger wrote:
On 01/07/2010 10:50 PM, Brien wrote:
Don Wrote:
Ok, that's good to know. I assumed because D billed itself as a
"systems" programming language that performance would be paramount.
He's talking about his converter program, not about D!
Oops, sorry about
On 01/07/2010 10:50 PM, Brien wrote:
Don Wrote:
Ok, that's good to know. I assumed because D billed itself as a "systems"
programming language that performance would be paramount.
He's talking about his converter program, not about D!
Oops, sorry about the misinterpretation.
I'm sure I'
bearophile Wrote:
> Walter Bright:
> > Is this in bugzilla?
>
> I think most of them are already in bugzilla.
> I'll put some bugs there.
>
> Bye,
> bearophile
FWIW, I just reported another, particularly nasty one where the array
operations stomps over the memory lying after the array:
http:/
Don Wrote:
> > Ok, that's good to know. I assumed because D billed itself as a "systems"
> > programming language that performance would be paramount.
>
> He's talking about his converter program, not about D!
Oops, sorry about the misinterpretation.
> > I'm sure I'm the millionth person to a
Brien wrote:
BCS Wrote:
That might be viable but the system was never intended for speed (its intent
was as a way to escape needing Mono on a non Windows system) so you would
be stuck having to write D code in C#.
Ok, that's good to know. I assumed because D billed itself as a "systems"
pr
Ellery Newcomer wrote:
On 01/07/2010 07:04 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
The following code compiles under dmd v2.037, no closing brace required.
---
import std.stdio;
void main()
{
while(true)
writeln("Bug!");
---
Bug, or feature for the extremely lazy?
in pa
BCS Wrote:
> That might be viable but the system was never intended for speed (its intent
> was as a way to escape needing Mono on a non Windows system) so you would
> be stuck having to write D code in C#.
Ok, that's good to know. I assumed because D billed itself as a "systems"
programming
On 01/07/2010 07:04 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
The following code compiles under dmd v2.037, no closing brace required.
---
import std.stdio;
void main()
{
while(true)
writeln("Bug!");
---
Bug, or feature for the extremely lazy?
in parse.c, Parse
Hello Brien,
Hi BCS,
I'd really appreciate it. I'm looking to port over a network server
application so the GUI stuff shouldn't be a problem. I've also kept
my source code on C# 1.0 so hopefully that should make it easier.
IIRC it targets c# 2.0 or there about (no LINQ)
Did you write you
Daniel Murphy Wrote:
> The following code compiles under dmd v2.037, no closing brace required.
>
> ---
> import std.stdio;
>
> void main()
> {
> while(true)
> writeln("Bug!");
> ---
>
> Bug, or feature for the extremely lazy?
That's just in there to
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
> It depends on what you are doing. If you rely heavily on the GC, .NET's
> GC is much more mature than D's, and probably performs better.
For performance reasons, I've taken great pains to avoid steady state memory
allocations. I've got a lot of mid-life crisis ty
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 09:53:32 -0500, Brien wrote:
Note there is a D compiler for .NET, which may allow you to avoid
porting
parts of it. I've never used it, but it has been announced here
somewhere.
-Steve
I saw that, but my goal is to get off of .NET. I'm assuming I will be
able to g
> Note there is a D compiler for .NET, which may allow you to avoid porting
> parts of it. I've never used it, but it has been announced here somewhere.
>
> -Steve
I saw that, but my goal is to get off of .NET. I'm assuming I will be able to
get better performance out of optimized D running
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 09:23:47 -0500, Brien wrote:
Hi BCS,
I'd really appreciate it. I'm looking to port over a network server
application so the GUI stuff shouldn't be a problem. I've also kept my
source code on C# 1.0 so hopefully that should make it easier.
Did you write your own pars
Hi BCS,
I'd really appreciate it. I'm looking to port over a network server
application so the GUI stuff shouldn't be a problem. I've also kept my source
code on C# 1.0 so hopefully that should make it easier.
Did you write your own parser or base it on ANTLR or some other
parsing/compiling
Pelle MÃ¥nsson Wrote:
> On 01/07/2010 02:04 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
> > The following code compiles under dmd v2.037, no closing brace required.
> >
> > ---
> > import std.stdio;
> >
> > void main()
> > {
> > while(true)
> > writeln("Bug!");
> > ---
> >
> >
On 01/07/2010 02:04 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
The following code compiles under dmd v2.037, no closing brace required.
---
import std.stdio;
void main()
{
while(true)
writeln("Bug!");
---
Bug, or feature for the extremely lazy?
I bumped into this
Daniel Murphy wrote:
The following code compiles under dmd v2.037, no closing brace required.
---
import std.stdio;
void main()
{
while(true)
writeln("Bug!");
---
Bug, or feature for the extremely lazy?
It could be the same as bug 3542:
http:/
The following code compiles under dmd v2.037, no closing brace required.
---
import std.stdio;
void main()
{
while(true)
writeln("Bug!");
---
Bug, or feature for the extremely lazy?
bearophile Wrote:
>
> If you care for performance then *always* time your code (in this case the
> two alternative versions with and without array ops), because what Walter and
> docs say is always less important that what the reality is.
Of course I would time the code; as it stands though, t
Walter Bright:
> Is this in bugzilla?
I think most of them are already in bugzilla.
I'll put some bugs there.
Bye,
bearophile
bearophile wrote:
Also note that currently array ops are quite buggy
Is this in bugzilla?
Clemens:
> In short, has anyone seen this before and knows of a workaround? Of course I
> could rewrite the array expressions as loops, but I seem to recall Walter
> mentioning that array expressions are optimized using SIMD operations. Is
> that true? If so, I'm hesitant to throw that overboard
Hey all,
I've run across a bizarre linker error when using array expressions of the form
buf1[] = buf1[] + 0.5f * buf2[];
The linker gives me errors like this one:
OPTLINK (R) for Win32 Release 8.00.2
Copyright (C) Digital Mars 1989-2009 All rights reserved.
http://www.digitalmars.com/ctg/opt
28 matches
Mail list logo
