"Vladimir Panteleev" wrote in message
news:op.vsp3zooituz...@cybershadow.mshome.net...
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 04:30:37 +0200, Vladimir Panteleev
> wrote:
>
>> Your post doesn't seem to mention it,
>
> Sorry, didn't scroll down enough :)
>
Well, that is a lot of scrolling, actually :)
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 02:08:39 +0100, dsimcha wrote:
The biggest perf issue, though, seems to be Euler's algorithm instead of
BinaryGCD. This is definitely going to get fixed eventually by me,
since I've read up on BinaryGCD and it doesn't look hard to implement
generically. I naively thou
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 3/21/11 12:18 PM, dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Don (nos...@nospam.com)'s article
Ok, I don't know much about how BigInts work under the hood. I used a
fairly simple implementation of Euler's algorithm here. Is there
something much more efficient for BigInts?
Yes
Hello ,
The DMD will support shared lib for linux in future, But I wan't to
know when this can be completed .
I am try use GDC build libgdruntime.a with -fPIC, and catch some
error I can't fix it .
for example:
../../../../libphobos/rt/arraybyte.d
../../../../libphobos/rt/arraybyte.d: In funct
> Excellent. I highly doubt we care about std.parallelism working on
embedded platforms. (Who the heck has a multicore embedded CPU
anyway?)
I KNOW!!
64k ought to be enough for anybody, right?
> Do input arguments of pure functions need the @transparent attributes? Is
> dropping it ouside the pure subset of the program safe/acceptable? I think so.
Sorry, in my opinion the answers to those questions are no and yes.
Bye,
bearophile
Sorry for the late reply to this post, the topic is not easy and I am not sure
what the right ideas are:
http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=130554
Steven Schveighoffer:
> @transparent has little value outside a pure function, because the
> comp
Hi,
I'm interested in the GSoC project idea which is listed in
http://prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?GSOC_2011_Ideas#Containers . But the
problem is that I couldn't find the relevant mentor for the project. Can
somebody help me to find the mentor and contact him?
Thank you...!
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 04:30:37 +0200, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
Your post doesn't seem to mention it,
Sorry, didn't scroll down enough :)
--
Best regards,
Vladimirmailto:vladi...@thecybershadow.net
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 02:12:55 +0200, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
The question: What now? What strategies do people find useful for dealing
with this? Any specific "first steps" to take? Best practices? Etc.
Your post doesn't seem to mention it, but how about converting the static
ctors to initial
Andrei:
> By its very design, BigInt is supposed to
> transparently replace integers.
Small missing parts:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5765
To allow them in switch too:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=596
Bye,
bearophile
On 3/21/2011 11:58 AM, dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from dsimcha (dsim...@yahoo.com)'s article
== Quote from Michel Fortin (michel.for...@michelf.com)'s article
On second thought, no, but for practical, not theoretical reasons:
One, you can't introspect whether a foreach loop is using a ref or a
val
On 3/21/2011 8:33 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I think by and large failure to define rational for BigInt in a way that
has many commonalities with rational for built-in integrals reflects a
failure of BigInt. By its very design, BigInt is supposed to
transparently replace integers. If this is
On 3/21/11 12:18 PM, dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Don (nos...@nospam.com)'s article
Ok, I don't know much about how BigInts work under the hood. I used a
fairly simple implementation of Euler's algorithm here. Is there
something much more efficient for BigInts?
Yes. Euler's algorithm performs
"dsimcha" wrote in message
news:im8pu5$1921$1...@digitalmars.com...
> On 3/21/2011 7:55 PM, nedbrek wrote:
>>
>> The main architectures (x86 and ARM) are both byte granular. Most
>> embedded
>> platforms are also byte granular. Alpha is the only architecture I am
>> aware
>> of that had this
"Nick Sabalausky" wrote in message
news:im8pmp$18p7$1...@digitalmars.com...
>
> The pattern: The trick is to convert every variable that needs to be
> initialized into an "init on first use" ref @property. This "ref
> @property" checks a "hasThisBeenInited" bool and, if false, runs all the
> i
On 3/21/2011 7:55 PM, nedbrek wrote:
Hello all,
"dsimcha" wrote in message
news:im8d3b$j78$1...@digitalmars.com...
A few posts deep in the discussion on std.parallelism have prompted me to
double-check an assumption that I made previously. Is writing to adjacent
but
non-overlapping memory add
I'm intending this thread as somewhat of a roundtable-like discussion.
Hopefully we can come up with good material for a short article on Wiki4D,
or maybe the D website, or wherever.
The scenario: A coder is writing some D, compiles, runs and gets a "Cyclic
dependency in static ctors" error. Cr
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Don (nos...@nospam.com)'s article
dsimcha wrote:
On 3/21/2011 3:59 AM, Don wrote:
The original plan for BigInt was to have a BigRational type. Suppose
that such a thing existed -- would it affect plans for this library?
I'm not sure that it is realistic to have a
Hello all,
"dsimcha" wrote in message
news:im8d3b$j78$1...@digitalmars.com...
>A few posts deep in the discussion on std.parallelism have prompted me to
> double-check an assumption that I made previously. Is writing to adjacent
> but
> non-overlapping memory addresses concurrently from differ
"Steven Schveighoffer" wrote in message
news:op.vso2wwsweav7ka@steve-laptop...
>
> If you are interested, the code that runs the static ctors is in druntime,
> not the compiler.
Yea, I had a feeling druntime would be involved since the cycles get
reported at runtime. Thanks for confirming, tho
or helping to get dmd x64 on Windows running (I suggest using MinGW's
tools for that if possible).
To quote Walter:
"To do 64 bits on Windows requires:
1. 64 bit OMF
2. 64 bit librarian
3. 64 bit generating dmd
4. 64 bit C compiler
5. 64 bit symbolic debug info
6. 64 bit debugger
7. 64 bit C
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:35:58 +0100, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
Why does one make sense and the other not? In other words, if I have a
function like this:
int foo(int delegate() x) pure {...}
is this *ever* callable from a strong-pure function? Or does the
delegate have to be declared
Students are now supposed to submit/discuss project proposals
hmm how about making D run on other architectures like ARM, PowerPC, ...?
== Quote from bearophile (bearophileh...@lycos.com)'s article
> dsimcha:
> > Is writing to adjacent but
> > non-overlapping memory addresses concurrently from different threads safe on
> > all hardware we care about supporting?
> Aren't some problems caused by writing on the same cache line?
> Bye,
dsimcha:
> Is writing to adjacent but
> non-overlapping memory addresses concurrently from different threads safe on
> all hardware we care about supporting?
Aren't some problems caused by writing on the same cache line?
Bye,
bearophile
A few posts deep in the discussion on std.parallelism have prompted me to
double-check an assumption that I made previously. Is writing to adjacent but
non-overlapping memory addresses concurrently from different threads safe on
all hardware we care about supporting?
I know this isn't safe on som
On 3/21/11 3:15 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-03-20 16:10, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Since David kindly agreed to work some more on std.parallelism, there is
now time for carrying one review cycle on another library. I recall
there's work on:
* std.goodxml (status?)
* std.net (beyond mere
== Quote from Don (nos...@nospam.com)'s article
> > Ok, I don't know much about how BigInts work under the hood. I used a
> > fairly simple implementation of Euler's algorithm here. Is there
> > something much more efficient for BigInts?
> Yes. Euler's algorithm performs very poorly for BigInts.
== Quote from Don (nos...@nospam.com)'s article
> dsimcha wrote:
> > On 3/21/2011 3:59 AM, Don wrote:
> >> The original plan for BigInt was to have a BigRational type. Suppose
> >> that such a thing existed -- would it affect plans for this library?
> >>
> >> I'm not sure that it is realistic to ha
dsimcha wrote:
On 3/21/2011 3:59 AM, Don wrote:
The original plan for BigInt was to have a BigRational type. Suppose
that such a thing existed -- would it affect plans for this library?
I'm not sure that it is realistic to have a single templated type that
does both BigInt rationals, together w
== Quote from dsimcha (dsim...@yahoo.com)'s article
> == Quote from Michel Fortin (michel.for...@michelf.com)'s article
> > > On second thought, no, but for practical, not theoretical reasons:
> > > One, you can't introspect whether a foreach loop is using a ref or a
> > > value parameter. This is
On Mar 21, 11 21:54, dsimcha wrote:
(3) BigInts cannot overflow.
In particular, gcd algorithms for arbitrary precision types are quite
different to gcd for built-ins.
Ok, I don't know much about how BigInts work under the hood. I used a
fairly simple implementation of Euler's algorithm here.
== Quote from Michel Fortin (michel.for...@michelf.com)'s article
> > On second thought, no, but for practical, not theoretical reasons:
> > One, you can't introspect whether a foreach loop is using a ref or a
> > value parameter. This is an issue with how opApply works.
> Indeed a problem. Either
On Mar 21, 11 18:26, Daniel Gibson wrote:
Am 21.03.2011 11:09, schrieb KennyTM~:
On Mar 21, 11 16:17, Don wrote:
I agree. But unfortunately, the idea is a relatively complicated feature
with a lot of special cases. For example, this(this.bla, this.bla){}
'int f(int x, int x) {}' is a syntax
On 2011-03-21 09:50:09 -0400, dsimcha said:
On 3/21/2011 8:37 AM, Michel Fortin wrote:
Well, it'll work irrespective of whether shared delegates are used or
not. I think you could add a compile-time check that the array element
size is a multiple of the word size when the element is passed by
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 10:08:56 -0400, Don wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Will there not be an expectation that a pure function will not
read/write shared data that will be broken (i.e. why did the compiler
allow this, I thought I was safe from this!)?
If you pass the address of global
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 20:06:16 -0400, Don wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:35:27 -0400, Don wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 04:34:54 -0400, Don wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
As long as the delegate does not
On 3/21/2011 3:59 AM, Don wrote:
The original plan for BigInt was to have a BigRational type. Suppose
that such a thing existed -- would it affect plans for this library?
I'm not sure that it is realistic to have a single templated type that
does both BigInt rationals, together with rationals ba
On 3/21/2011 8:37 AM, Michel Fortin wrote:
Well, it'll work irrespective of whether shared delegates are used or
not. I think you could add a compile-time check that the array element
size is a multiple of the word size when the element is passed by ref in
the loop and leave the clever trick as a
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 17:42:58 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
These module constructor "Cyclic dependencies" errors are really
starting to
piss me off. I feel like I'm back in the days when you'd sneeze and DMD
would vomit out 100 forward reference errors just because you didn't
write
your wh
On 2011-03-20 18:36, bearophile wrote:
Through I've found a link to a language I didn't know, named Archetype. This
blog post contains some pointers and references about the language:
http://dvanderboom.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/new-language-code-named-archetype/
Some comments and quotations and
Don:
> 'pure', for example, is roughly the same level of
> implementation complexity as this feature.
If this is true, then this is amazing :-) Considering that pure is probably
about 60-70% implemented in D (no way to perform conditional purity, no good
management of special cases, your last
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 20:06:16 -0400, Don wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:35:27 -0400, Don wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 04:34:54 -0400, Don wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
As long as the delegate does not access shared/global data, i
Daniel Gibson wrote:
Am 21.03.2011 11:09, schrieb KennyTM~:
On Mar 21, 11 16:17, Don wrote:
I agree. But unfortunately, the idea is a relatively complicated feature
with a lot of special cases. For example, this(this.bla, this.bla){}
'int f(int x, int x) {}' is a syntax error. So should 'this(
On 2011-03-20 23:21:49 -0400, dsimcha said:
On 3/20/2011 10:44 PM, Michel Fortin wrote:
I don't see a problem with the above. The array elements you modify are
passed through parallel's opApply which can check easily whether it's
safe or not to pass them by ref to different threads (by checki
spir wrote:
On 03/21/2011 12:55 AM, bearophile wrote:
Among the things I've listed about Archetype there's one interesting
thing. Class instances aren't PODs, but sometimes I prefer reference
semantics and to populate fields in a plain way, expecially for simple
classes.
Time ago I and other
Am 21.03.2011 11:09, schrieb KennyTM~:
> On Mar 21, 11 16:17, Don wrote:
>>
>> I agree. But unfortunately, the idea is a relatively complicated feature
>> with a lot of special cases. For example, this(this.bla, this.bla){}
>
> 'int f(int x, int x) {}' is a syntax error. So should 'this(this.x,
>
On 2011-03-20 16:10, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Since David kindly agreed to work some more on std.parallelism, there is
now time for carrying one review cycle on another library. I recall
there's work on:
* std.goodxml (status?)
* std.net (beyond mere libcurl bindings)
* std.path (improvement
On Mar 21, 11 16:17, Don wrote:
Daniel Gibson wrote:
Am 21.03.2011 00:55, schrieb bearophile:
Among the things I've listed about Archetype there's one interesting
thing. Class instances aren't PODs, but sometimes I prefer reference
semantics and to populate fields in a plain way, expecially for
On 03/21/2011 12:55 AM, bearophile wrote:
Among the things I've listed about Archetype there's one interesting thing.
Class instances aren't PODs, but sometimes I prefer reference semantics and to
populate fields in a plain way, expecially for simple classes.
Time ago I and other people have s
On 2011-03-20 00:12, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Saturday 19 March 2011 07:43:37 David Nadlinger wrote:
While lying in the bed with fever yesterday (so please excuse any
careless mistakes), I was pondering a bit about the current discussions
regarding Phobos additions, package management, etc. It
Am 21.03.2011 09:17, schrieb Don:
> Daniel Gibson wrote:
>> Am 21.03.2011 00:55, schrieb bearophile:
>>> Among the things I've listed about Archetype there's one interesting thing.
>>> Class instances aren't PODs, but sometimes I prefer reference semantics and
>>> to populate fields in a plain way,
Daniel Gibson wrote:
Am 21.03.2011 00:55, schrieb bearophile:
Among the things I've listed about Archetype there's one interesting
thing. Class instances aren't PODs, but sometimes I prefer reference
semantics and to populate fields in a plain way, expecially for simple
classes.
Time ago I a
dsimcha wrote:
On 3/20/2011 10:26 PM, bearophile wrote:
dsimcha:
On second thought, given the difficulty finding anything else, rational
may be the thing that's most ready. I'll offer it up for review now
It's good to have rationals in Phobos, thank you.
Is this GCD? There is already a gcd
dsimcha wrote:
> On 3/20/2011 6:33 AM, Jens Mueller wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >according to
> >http://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/program/accepted_orgs/google/gsoc2011
> >Digital Mars got accepted to GSoC 2011.
> >
> >On the above mentioned page Digital Mars is ranked in the second table
> >because the o
56 matches
Mail list logo
