Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
2009/6/29 MIURA Masahiro :
Yigal Chripun wrote:
do not tell other people what to think and what to write. this is not
china and you are not the great firewall.
grow up.
Apparently you don't share Jarrett's consciousness of the problem
that more important issues are l
Yigal Chripun wrote:
> MIURA Masahiro wrote:
>> Yigal Chripun wrote:
>>> do not tell other people what to think and what to write. this is not
>>> china and you are not the great firewall.
>>> grow up.
>> Apparently you don't share Jarrett's consciousness of the problem
>> that more important issu
Yigal Chripun wrote:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
2009/6/29 MIURA Masahiro :
Yigal Chripun wrote:
do not tell other people what to think and what to write. this is not
china and you are not the great firewall.
grow up.
Apparently you don't share Jarrett's consciousness of the problem
that more
Yigal Chripun wrote:
Tom S wrote:
Yigal Chripun wrote:
thirdly, D has a dictator, Walter Bright, which decides its fate and
we have almost zero influence on this.
I thought "The needs and contributions of the D programming community
form the direction it goes.".
who tol
Lutger wrote:
Tom S wrote:
Yigal Chripun wrote:
(snip)
IMHO, the Tango vs. Phobos licensing issue is the biggest bikeshed color
problem in the D realm and the only people that can solve it are the
tango devs and walter and co. of which Neither are willing to budge.
Uhhh... try listening to
Sean Kelly wrote:
== Quote from Tom S (h3r3...@remove.mat.uni.torun.pl)'s article
IIRC, Tango devs claim that its runtime is better than druntime, which
also only supports DMD at the moment.
How is it better? I vaguely recall at least one change in Tango's runtime
that actually vi
Don wrote:
Tom S wrote:
Lutger wrote:
Tom S wrote:
Yigal Chripun wrote:
(snip)
IMHO, the Tango vs. Phobos licensing issue is the biggest bikeshed
color
problem in the D realm and the only people that can solve it are the
tango devs and walter and co. of which Neither are willing to budge
Don wrote:
Tom S wrote:
Don wrote:
Tom S wrote:
Lutger wrote:
Tom S wrote:
Yigal Chripun wrote:
(snip)
IMHO, the Tango vs. Phobos licensing issue is the biggest
bikeshed color
problem in the D realm and the only people that can solve it are the
tango devs and walter and co. of which
Tanukisan wrote:
Hi guys
I introduce myself, I'm a french student in Appliyed mathematics and one of my
biggest dream was to create a small racing game
My project is designed to be a Trackmania-like not more not less in a more
simpliest way since it's a demo.
The modelization part is do
Sean Kelly wrote:
== Quote from Tom S (h3r3...@remove.mat.uni.torun.pl)'s article
Sean Kelly wrote:
== Quote from Tom S (h3r3...@remove.mat.uni.torun.pl)'s article
And apparently, there's been very
little contact with Sean lately, so it's a case of 'us' vs
Walter Bright wrote:
For a more recent example, 3122 contained a patch that was marked as
complete and tested, but it had two serious bugs (did not check that a
filename was supplied, and did not check for file write errors) and an
unnecessary hardcoded OS dependency (on path lengths). These ar
Walter Bright wrote:
Of course that's true, but why is a dedicated syntax better than Tuple!(
...) ?
Why is dedicated syntax for comma expressions better than commaExpr(...)
? I take it most folks on this NG would prefer to have shorter syntax
for tuples instead the virtually never used comma
Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 12:03:37AM +0200, Michiel Helvensteijn wrote:
Would you look at this page and give me your opinion?
Looking at it quickly, the big difference seems to be you leave the tuple
word off, and use them in more places.
Is
Tuple!(int, bool) A = tuple(a,
Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
(...) It is two brief lines longer to copy them to a local x and y if you want
to.
Remember delegate literals? They were just a few more tokens, but it
wasn't until the shorthand syntax was introduced that everyone started
using them. I mean, how hard is it to type the e
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
yigal chripun wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
yigal chripun wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
Is it appropriate to define multiple classes, structs,
templates, etc within a single module? What considerations
should inform the decision regarding the placement of
A Bothe wrote:
What's your favorite line of D code?
I like my recent:
c.resFunc = cast(void
function(void*))(*cast(void***)proto.resources[origResIdx].init().ptr)[
Command.Type.ResAcquire == c.type ? 1 : 2
];
Sure, it's 3 lines, but still one statement and if I were downs, that
wou
Walter Bright wrote:
language_fan wrote:
This information is also taught in basic university level compiler
courses.
I bet only a tiny fraction of programmers have taken university compiler
classes. (Also, they were not covered in compiler classes I took.)
Consider also that the Java JVM doe
Short story: DMD probably needs an option to output template instances
to all object files that need them.
Long story:
I've been trying to make incremental compilation in xfBuild reliable,
but it turns out that it's really tricky with DMD. Consider the
following example:
* module A instanti
Walter Bright wrote:
Tom S wrote:
Thus my suggestion of adding an option to DMD so it may emit template
instances to all object files that use them. If anyone has alternative
ideas, I'd be glad to hear them, because I'm running out of options.
Try compiling with -lib, which wil
Tom S wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Tom S wrote:
Thus my suggestion of adding an option to DMD so it may emit template
instances to all object files that use them. If anyone has
alternative ideas, I'd be glad to hear them, because I'm running out
of options.
Try compiling with -
Walter Bright wrote:
Tom S wrote:
As for my own impressions of this idea, its biggest drawback probably
is that the multitude of object files created via -multiobj strains
the filesystem.
Sure, but -multiobj and -lib generate exactly the same object files,
it's just that -lib puts the
Walter Bright wrote:
I don't really understand why the -lib approach is not working for your
needs.
I'm not sure what you mean by "the -lib approach". Just how do you
exactly apply it to incremental compilation? If my project has a few
hundred modules and I change just one line in one functio
Walter Bright wrote:
Tom S wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
I don't really understand why the -lib approach is not working for
your needs.
I'm not sure what you mean by "the -lib approach". Just how do you
exactly apply it to incremental compilation? If my project has a few
Walter Bright wrote:
What you can try is creating a database that is basically a lib (call it
A.lib) of all the modules compiled with -lib. Then recompile all modules
that depend on changed modules in one command, also with -lib, call it
B.lib. Then for all the obj's in B, replace the correspon
Don wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Tom S wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
What you can try is creating a database that is basically a lib
(call it A.lib) of all the modules compiled with -lib. Then
recompile all modules that depend on changed modules in one command,
also with -lib, call it B.lib
Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
I haven't had to use the C heap whatsoever so far in D, could you give me an
example of where you need it? In fact, the *only* place I use the C heap is in
my garbage collector's internals, for pool structs and mark ranges. I use
pointers to GC memory all the time too,
Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
Tom S Wrote:
Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
I haven't had to use the C heap whatsoever so far in D, could you give me an
example of where you need it? In fact, the *only* place I use the C heap is in
my garbage collector's internals, for pool structs and mark
Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
Tom S Wrote:
Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
I myself allocate all my meshes and textures directly on the GC and I'm pretty
sure its faster than C's malloc and much safer.
Hm, why would it be faster with the GC than malloc? I'm pretty sure it's
the
Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
Tom S Wrote:
Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
Tom S Wrote:
Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
I myself allocate all my meshes and textures directly on the GC and I'm pretty
sure its faster than C's malloc and much safer.
Hm, why would it be faster with the GC than m
Walter Bright wrote:
What you can try is creating a database that is basically a lib (call it
A.lib) of all the modules compiled with -lib. Then recompile all modules
that depend on changed modules in one command, also with -lib, call it
B.lib. Then for all the obj's in B, replace the correspon
Walter Bright wrote:
Tom S wrote:
Personally I'm of the opinion that functions should be explicitly
marked for CTFE, and this is just another reason for such. I'm using a
patched DMD with added pragma(ctfe) which instructs the compiler not
to run any codegen or generate debug info
Walter Bright wrote:
Tom S wrote:
When building my second largest project, DMD eats up about 1.2GB of
memory and dies (even without -g). Luckily, xfBuild allows me to set
the limit of modules to be compiled at a time, so when I cap it to
200, it compiled... but didn't link :( Somewhere i
Walter Bright wrote:
Tom S wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Tom S wrote:
Personally I'm of the opinion that functions should be explicitly
marked for CTFE, and this is just another reason for such. I'm using
a patched DMD with added pragma(ctfe) which instructs the compiler
not
Walter Bright wrote:
Also, if you specify a .obj file directly to the linker, it will put all
of the symbols and data in that .obj file into the executable. The
linker does NOT remove functions.
What it DOES do is pull obj files out of a library to resolve unresolved
symbols from other obj fi
language_fan wrote:
Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:47:21 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer thusly wrote:
I actually prefer the compiler to handle the casting versus templates to
cut down on template instantiation bloat.
I wonder how D scales to 100 MLOC programs as the template instantiations
can be troubles
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
[snip]
The problem is you keep on insisting on one case "I have a non-null
reference that I don't have an initializer for, but the compiler forces
me to find one, so I'll just throw a crappy value in." This focus on one
situation comes straight with your admitted bad
Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Daniel Keep wrote:
"But the user will just assign to something useless to get around
that!"
You mean like how everyone wraps every call in try{...}catch(Exception
e){} to shut the damn exceptions up?
They do just that in
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I think this has been discussed in this group already.
An object storing another object needs two allocations:
class A { ... }
class B {
A a;
this() {
a = new A;
}
}
auto b = new B; // two allocations
I'm thinking of using "scope" in this situation to
bearophile wrote:
(after a small discussion on IRC) Tuples may be used for similar purposes, but
fixed-sized arrays are simpler to use, simpler to define, and they don't induce
compilation/code bloat. (...)
What do you mean by that? So parametrizing a template with a static
array would cause
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
It's a rough rough draft, but one for the full chapter on arrays,
associative arrays, and strings.
http://erdani.com/d/thermopylae.pdf
Any feedback is welcome. Thanks!
Thanks for the excerpt! I've only had the time to give it a brief skim
so far, but it's looking
/** Just a simple hack to have interfaces implemented by structs ...
because I can :P
Tested on DMD 1.039 [win32], GDC (various versions) [linux32] and
codepad.org
Output:
Entering main
Foo.func1 called ; val1 = 3.141590, val2 = Hello, world!
Foo.func2 called ; val1 = 3.141590, val2 = Hello, w
Chad J wrote:
Hawt!
I take it this can be done without assembly?
Should be doable, but with more pain and overhead (the generated
functions would need to pass all parameters to the real ones and you'd
have to take care of ref-ness).
--
Tomasz Stachowiak
http://h3.team0xf.com/
h3/h3r3tic o
BCS wrote:
Hello Tom,
The concept is pretty simple. The mixin creates a vtable which points
to
a set of generated functions of the form { adjust the 'this' ptr; jump
to the real function; }. Finally, the "InterfaceName
asInterfaceName()"
functions generated inside the struct return pointers to
BCS wrote:
Hello Tom,
BCS wrote:
Hello Tom,
The concept is pretty simple. The mixin creates a vtable which
points
to
a set of generated functions of the form { adjust the 'this' ptr;
jump
to the real function; }. Finally, the "InterfaceName
asInterfaceName()"
functions generated inside the
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
"Tom S" wrote
/**
The concept is pretty simple. The mixin creates a vtable which points to a
set of generated functions of the form { adjust the 'this' ptr; jump to
the real function; }. Finally, the "InterfaceName asInterfaceName()"
Tim M wrote:
Is there a reason to have structs instead of classes/objects to do
whatever you use them for or is that besides the point?
Structs are more lightweight because they don't carry the 'monitor' and
vtable pointer. It's also easier to create them on the stack e.g. in
arrays. But my c
BCS wrote:
struct S { int i; int j; int k; int n; }
S[5] sArr;
ca I make an inerface out of sArr[2] ?
The new version of my code can do it. Of course you'd still need some
functions in S and an actual interface there ;)
--
Tomasz Stachowiak
http://h3.team0xf.com/
h3/h3r3tic on #D freenod
BCS wrote:
Hello Tom,
if you want I can get you access to add this to scrapple.
I guess that would be cool :) My dsource user name is, as usual, 'h3r3tic'.
--
Tomasz Stachowiak
http://h3.team0xf.com/
h3/h3r3tic on #D freenode
Rainer Deyke wrote:
Christopher Wright wrote:
What mechanism for sharing state is available to by-reference objects
but not by-value objects?
struct C {
T t;
}
C c1;
C c2 = c1;
If T was a reference type, 'c1' and 'c2' now share state, and it's up to
the programmer to write code to prevent
Rainer Deyke wrote:
Because unintentional object aliasing a problem orders of magnitude more
common than unintentional object slicing, and at least an order of
magnitude harder to detect and fix.
Because you can't correctly duplicate a multi-dimensional dynamic array
in D by using the built-in '
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
That's it -- I'm finished. I'm tired of constantly rearranging code
to appease OPTLINK and its outdated object format.
This is, for me, the number one blocker of most of my more complex
code on Windows. More than any DMD bug. Tom S can vouch for it
Tim M wrote:
Just checking you are aware of objconv which can be found here
http://www.agner.org/optimize/.
Have you successfully used it to convert all OMF obj files of some
application to another format and link them? It gives me a lot of:
"Error 2316: Incompatible relocation method: 16+32
Walter Bright wrote:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=424
I just added this to the bug report:
==
The compiler already has a switch to generate multiple obj files from
one source file: -multiobj. I use it for debugging. But it woul
Walter Bright wrote:
Tom S wrote:
I've tried it before and unfortunately there's a problem with this
approach: static ctors from modules linked from a .lib don't get
executed:
Not everything is linked in from a library, just referenced things
(that's the whole point of
Walter Bright wrote:
Tom S wrote:
So it seems that Main.d would have to reference symbols from each
module in the program. Ouch.
I found that problem, and fixed it.
Cool, thanks :)
Additionally, using such an approach breaks any possibility to use
incremental compilation.
It depends
Max Samukha wrote:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 04:16:35 -0800, Walter Bright
wrote:
Tom S wrote:
So there's also the option of having a .lib per
.d file and linking that all together. So I've just tried it:
dmd -c Main.d
dmd -lib Mod.d
dmd -lib Mod2.d
dmd Main.obj Mod.lib Mod2.d
... a
Walter Bright wrote:
The problem appears to be that optlink cannot deal correctly with weak
references. I've modified the compiler to not emit weak references, and
the problem goes away. It's not a perfect fix, but it works.
With the modified compiler, does the following link? If so, is the
o
Walter Bright wrote:
Tom S wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
The problem appears to be that optlink cannot deal correctly with
weak references. I've modified the compiler to not emit weak
references, and the problem goes away. It's not a perfect fix, but it
works.
With the modifie
Georg Wrede wrote:
Another smarta** might say that "it says References: boost" so read
that. Well, one could say this about every single doc page on the site.
Well, I'll be that smarta** then. I've mostly implemented Bind for fun
and I hate writing docs. I'm not sure if I actually use it in mo
How is compilar formed? How is compilar formed? How executable get maked?
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
Hi!
ohai!
I'm in need of heavy (long, complicated, interesting, whatever)
templates and/or compile-time functions to help me debug the
compile-time debugger I'm writing. Can you paste/attach some here, or
give me links?
xpose2 is pretty mad: http://team0xf.com:1024
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
enum Uninitialized { yeahIKnow }
Hahaha, brilliant! :D
Is there interest for such a thing?
Yes, absolutely. I use lots of stack allocations and the vision of an
overflow is always lurking somewhere in the shadows... EASTL has a stack
allocator, so we must have
bearophile wrote:
6) Static if and static asserts seem a little more complex that the ways to do
similar things in C, but they seem a good complexity.
Static if and static asserts in C? Good joke.
I think that most of the complexity of D is good, but there are many
corners/things can be im
Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 19:19:58 +0300, Tom S
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
bearophile wrote:
6) Static if and static asserts seem a little more complex that the
ways to do similar things in C, but they seem a good complexity.
Static if and static asserts in C? Goo
Don wrote:
bearophile wrote:
While writing code that works on matrices I have found something
curious...
Here's what I think is going on. AFAIK, D hasn't got any special code
for initializing jagged arrays. So
auto A = new double[][](N, N);
involves N+1 memory allocations.
As well as
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Tom S wrote:
Don wrote:
bearophile wrote:
While writing code that works on matrices I have found something
curious...
Here's what I think is going on. AFAIK, D hasn't got any special code
for initializing jagged arrays. So
auto A = new doubl
dsimcha wrote:
I'm working on optimizing some code now, and a nagging issue that I've been
meaning to bring up is how slow stuff runs when profiling is turned on. It
seems that, given any code that's slow enough to be worth
profiling/optimizing, the DMD profiler slows it down further, to the poi
67 matches
Mail list logo
