ok, thank you all very much for answering my questions, this should get me
going.
On 26.06.2011 10:58, %u wrote:
Hi!
I'm working on a little kernel with D, and so far, I've been able to
boot it and set up a physical memory manager.
Now, I'm trying to allow for module constructors in the code. However,
as soon as I define one, I see errors like this:
Error 42: Symbol
class B
{
void fun() { writeln(B); }
}
class D : B
{
override void fun() { writeln(D); }
}
void delegate() dg = b.fun;
dg.ptr = cast(void*)d;
dg();
Compiler: DMD 2.053
It prints B instead of D.
The equivalent code in C++ prints D nicely.
Is it a bug or by design? I hope it's
== Quote from Rainer Schuetze (r.sagita...@gmx.de)'s article
The static module constructor causes your module to take part in
the
module initialization phase, so it creates a data structure that
contains info about modules which are imported and should be
initialized
first (referenced directly
kenji hara wrote:
Issue in bugzilla:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6207
Test implementation:
https://github.com/9rnsr/dmd/commit/52e4491cf6bf9ccf6dccc1fa60581fd6797d39b3
String mixin feature in D is very useful, but its syntax is bit ugly.
My proposal will make it more
Andrej Mitrovic:
It's going to break with 2.054 too because of missing default cases (it has
tons of those missing).
Do D programmers compile their code using -w? I use it constantly (and it warns
against the missing default).
Bye,
bearophile
On 2011-06-27 03:30:09 -0400, Nub Public nubpub...@gmail.com said:
class B
{
void fun() { writeln(B); }
}
class D : B
{
override void fun() { writeln(D); }
}
void delegate() dg = b.fun;
dg.ptr = cast(void*)d;
dg();
Compiler: DMD 2.053
It prints B instead of D.
The equivalent
There is a small error on the index page.
There are currently four implementations:
*There are currently four implementations:*
but there are only *three* implementations listed.
Thomas
There are currently four implementationsc
There are currently four implementations:
There are currently
ok I should not use gmail for composing anymore. :)
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Thomas Mader thomas.ma...@gmail.comwrote:
There is a small error on the index page.
There are currently four implementations:
*There are currently four implementations:*
but there are only *three*
On 6/27/2011 7:08 PM, Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2011-06-27 03:30:09 -0400, Nub Public nubpub...@gmail.com said:
class B
{
void fun() { writeln(B); }
}
class D : B
{
override void fun() { writeln(D); }
}
void delegate() dg = b.fun;
dg.ptr = cast(void*)d;
dg();
Compiler: DMD 2.053
It prints B
On Jun 27, 11 19:32, Thomas Mader wrote:
ok I should not use gmail for composing anymore. :)
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Thomas Mader thomas.ma...@gmail.com
mailto:thomas.ma...@gmail.com wrote:
There is a small error on the index page.
There are currently four implementations:
On 2011-06-27 04:31, Thomas Mader wrote:
There is a small error on the index page.
If you see any errors on the website, you should report them in bugzilla:
d.puremagic.com/issues
- Jonathan M Davis
Nub Public wrote:
On 6/27/2011 7:08 PM, Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2011-06-27 03:30:09 -0400, Nub Public nubpub...@gmail.com said:
class BOn 6/27/2011 7:08 PM, Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2011-06-27 03:30:09 -0400, Nub Public nubpub...@gmail.com said:
class B
{
void fun() { writeln(B); }
}
This page will need to be updated for 2.054:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/warnings.html
The section warning - switch statement has no default.
What the hell why did this create a new thread. Silly gmail..
On 6/27/11, Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com wrote:
This page will need to be updated for 2.054:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/warnings.html
The section warning - switch statement has no default.
My experience about this stuff is zero, but is this idea useful to
debug/improve DMD too?
http://blog.ezyang.com/2011/06/debugging-compilers-with-optimization-fuel/
Bye,
bearophile
On 6/28/2011 1:29 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
Nub Public wrote:
On 6/27/2011 7:08 PM, Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2011-06-27 03:30:09 -0400, Nub Publicnubpub...@gmail.com said:
class BOn 6/27/2011 7:08 PM, Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2011-06-27 03:30:09 -0400, Nub Publicnubpub...@gmail.com said:
On 6/12/11, Nick Sabalausky a@a.a wrote:
Actually, what I meant was this: DDMD is currently based on DMD 2.040. Ie,
ATM, it's DMD 2.040 ported to D. You said you were trying to use the 2.053
backend with DDMD, so I was just wondering if you were also updating DDMD
frontend to be a D port of
On 6/27/2011 1:28 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
You mean COM interfaces? I usually do this:
interface SomeComInterface : IUnknown
{
extern(Windows):
BOOL PrototypeFoo();
}
But maybe this is already implicit when deriving from IUnknown, I wouldn't know.
But from what I can tell some of
This question is related to this thread:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3632
Can you tell me why real.nan and real.init don't contain the same bit patterns?
import std.math: isIdentical;
void main() {
assert(isIdentical(real.nan, real.init)); // this asserts
}
Bye and thank
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3516
Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3632
kenn...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6075
kenn...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3632
yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3632
--- Comment #8 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2011-06-27
11:32:17 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Reopening as the commit above will cause the following assert to fail:
static assert(real.init !is real.nan);
This is intended.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3882
bearophile_h...@eml.cc changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |WONTFIX
--- Comment #7 from
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3632
--- Comment #9 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-06-27 13:33:12 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #8)
This is intended. All nans are regarded as the same (even signalling and
non-signalling).
So we have to use std.math.isIdentical() to tell apart
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6218
Summary: Stack trace possible improvement
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: x86
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P2
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6089
Iain Buclaw ibuc...@ubuntu.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ibuc...@ubuntu.com
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3147
Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3632
--- Comment #10 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2011-06-27
14:51:23 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #9)
(In reply to comment #8)
This is intended. All nans are regarded as the same (even signalling and
non-signalling).
So we
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3632
--- Comment #11 from yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com 2011-06-27 20:40:16 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #10)
I've been around numerics for 35 years now, and I've never seen a use for NaN
payloads. I've never seen anyone even propose a use. Until
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3632
--- Comment #12 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2011-06-27
21:08:47 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #11)
Making 'is' for floating point types consistent with 'is' for other types
seems
to me like a better move than introducing a
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3632
--- Comment #13 from yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com 2011-06-27 21:25:22 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #12)
The current behavior matches template argument matching. Making it different
from such will introduce all kinds of anomalous behavior.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2553
yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
CC|
35 matches
Mail list logo
