On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 2:36 PM, bearophile wrote:
> I'd like a higher max size limit for static arrays:
> uint[10_000_000] arr;
> For the LDC compiler is a fully arbitrary limit, it can support higher
> values. I'd like ldc to be free to use a higher limit.
>
>
> Most/all PC CPUs & operating sys
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Denis Koroskin" <2kor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:op.u3k8d9i9o7c...@dkoroskin.saber3d.local...
>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:15:47 +0300, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>
>>> "Don" wrote in message
>>> news:he0d7l$34...@digitalmars.com..
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Trass3r wrote:
> I originally posted a question about this in D.learn. bearophile advised me
> to ask for that feature here.
>
>
> Original post:
> ==
>
> OpenCL requires all types to be naturally aligned.
>
> The D specs state:
> "AlignAttribute is ign
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 5:58 PM, bearophile wrote:
> Tomas Lindquist Olsen:
>
>> LDC requires a lot of changes to the frontend.
>>
>> * DMD is not written as a cross compiler
>> * The runtime interfaces are hardcoded into the frontend semantics
>> * The ast r
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 4:45 PM, dsimcha wrote:
> == Quote from Tomas Lindquist Olsen (tomas.l.ol...@gmail.com)'s article
>> I'm not sure if LDC will ever support D2 (at least wont be by my hand)
>
> What is it about D2 that makes this unlikely? I thought after LDC D1 su
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Walter Bright
wrote:
> Max Samukha wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:48:51 -0800, Walter Bright
>> wrote:
>>
>>> If you've got a system that relies on the software continuing to function
>>> after an unexpected null seg fault, you have a VERY BADLY DESIGNED and
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 9:48 PM, Walter Bright
wrote:
> bearophile wrote:
>>
>> Walter Bright:
>>>
>>> I just wished to point out that it was not a *safety* issue.<
>>
>> A safe system is not a program that switches itself off as soon as
>> there's a small problem.
>
> Computers cannot know whethe
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Yigal Chripun wrote:
>
> I think you misunderstood. the idea is *not* to replace .di header files with
> llvm bit-code files.
> the idea is to replace d object files lib files with a llvm bit-code
> equivalents which does not need additional header files.
>
> l
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 10:26 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Fawzi Mohamed" wrote in message
> news:hbhi5q$1gq...@digitalmars.com...
>> On 2009-10-18 20:01:26 +0200, language_fan said:
>>
>>> Sun, 18 Oct 2009 16:35:53 +0200, Fawzi Mohamed thusly wrote:
on x86 the 64 bit extension added
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> Here is my thoughts and what I think is needed to build a really good IDE
> and maybe get some attention from the enterprise. It's really not enough for
> the compiler to output some json for an IDE to use, the whole tool chain
> needs to b
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Denis Koroskin <2kor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm currently writing a program that interfaces with C++.
> C++ code uses a lot of 'unsigned long', which equals to 'unsigned int', or
> just 'unsigned', but is mangled differently.
>
> In particular, C++ mangles unsigned l
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Daniel
Keep wrote:
>
> Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 2:18 AM, Walter
>> Bright wrote:
>>> Don wrote:
>>>> In this case you may have a long function, with only a single instruction
>>>
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 2:18 AM, Walter
Bright wrote:
> Don wrote:
>>
>> In this case you may have a long function, with only a single instruction
>> right in the middle which needs to be changed.
>
> void foo()
> {
> asm
> {
> mov EAX,EAX;
> ... lots more instructions ...
>
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Bill Baxter wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 1:37 PM, bearophile wrote:
>> Robert Clipsham:
>
>> But LLVM offers many interesting things that are hard to do with DMD's
>> back-end, often such things are already implemented in LLVM (maybe not fully
>> refined yet,
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Walter
Bright wrote:
> Julian Salazar wrote:
>>
>> Hi, I'm new here to the community but I've been using D for a while now,
>> and I have to say that it's a great programming language. I'd like to get
>> involved in this community and help shape this language.
>
> W
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Frits van Bommel
wrote:
> Sean Kelly wrote:
>>
>> Jason House wrote:
>>>
>>> Over in D.anounce, the LDC devs said they would have an easier time
>>> upgrading to newer dmd (fe) versions if the source was in source control.
>>> Even if Walter is the only one with wr
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 7:25 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
> Jason House wrote:
>>
>> Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
>>
>>> Jason House wrote:
BCS wrote:
> Hello Jason,
>
>> Should the final freezing of D2 be delayed until major D1 libraries
>> port to D2? I'm mostly th
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Tim Matthews wrote:
> Having a float -5.7 magically turn into -5 is usually what is wanted for a
> float to int conversion. I am not sure if anyone would want it to be
> converted to -1061788058 instead but dmd currently allows both by having the
> normal way easi
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Jarrett Billingsley
wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Tomas Lindquist Olsen
> wrote:
>
>> P.S. I know we can vote for issues now, that's a really good
>> development and has helped already, but the situation is still not
>>
2009/5/12 Luís Marques :
> Walter Bright wrote:
>>
>> D1 regularly gets around 20 bug fixes a month. I don't understand why this
>> is not seen as progress to a stable state. About 80% of bug fixes are common
>> to both D2 and D1.
>
> I think my perception (and I accept it may be a perception which
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 12:05 AM, mpt wrote:
> I keep making 2 mistakes in my D programs, and fixing them feels
> troublesome.
>
> 1. Null references. I get a segfault and gdb is useless (ldc thing maybe).
Useless how? Generally LDC debug info should be decent. If not, we'd
be glad to look into w
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 8:56 PM, Walter Bright
wrote:
> Steve Teale wrote:
>>
>> I am not criticizing you. I think you are doing a great job under the
>> pressure of a slew of suggestions. But maybe a line in the sand at
>> some point?
>
> But there *is* a line in the sand - D1.
>
>> OK so for thos
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Georg Wrede wrote:
> Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:
>>
>> 2009/4/29 Robert Fraser :
>>>
>>> Weed wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Is it possible to implement support for Google Android on the D?
>>>
>&g
2009/4/29 Robert Fraser :
> Weed wrote:
>>
>> Is it possible to implement support for Google Android on the D?
>
> Perhaps, but it'd be easier to implement support for D on the Google Android
> :-).
>
> LDC might be able to generate .class files, which can be run through the
> Android thingy to get
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 6:07 PM, MLT wrote:
> 2. char[] vs. int[]
> I think it is strange that
> char[] x = "1234" ;
> x[0] = '4' ;
>
> Produces a run time error, but
> int[] x = [1,2,3,4] ;
> x[0] = 4 ;
> Doesn't. I think that they both should, or both shouldn't - to be consistent
> (and it woul
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Don wrote:
> Stewart Gordon wrote:
>>
>> Don wrote:
>>>
>>> Stewart Gordon wrote:
Don wrote:
>>
>>
>
> I'm not sure why you think unions are so different to structs. They are
> identical in most respects -- including requirements for alignme
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 1:35 AM, Christopher Wright wrote:
> Frank Benoit wrote:
>>
>> I need to retrieve an instance of TypeInfo from an object instance at
>> runtime.
>>
>> TypeInfo info = typeid(obj) // does not work, only compile time
>>
>> TypeInfo info = obj.classinfo.; // how to navigat
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Denis Koroskin <2kor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 16:44:25 +0400, Tomas Lindquist Olsen
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Frits van Bommel
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Kagamin wrote:
>>>>
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Frits van Bommel
wrote:
> Kagamin wrote:
>>
>> Stewart Gordon Wrote:
>>
>>> At the moment, the problem seems to be that the compiler is silently
>>> ignoring many cases of (a), (b) and (c) alike. Some people argue that the
>>> spec doesn't forbid such use of inapp
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 7:42 AM, Walter Bright
wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>>
>> Evidently, my system is completely hosed now.
>
> I took this opportunity to upgrade from 8.04 to 8.10. This seems to have
> gotten it working again.
>
I always wondered why Ubuntu got so popular with the surprising
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Eljay wrote:
>>
>>> Alas, I'm not sure how to pass the variadic arguments through to another
>>> variadic function, with this
>>> signature:
>>> void perform(...)
>>
>> Y
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 5:48 PM, dsimcha wrote:
> According to this post:
> http://www.digitalmars.com/pnews/read.php?server=news.digitalmars.com&group=digitalmars.D&artnum=86918
>
> OffsetTypeInfo can be enabled when building LDC. Why does it not appear to
> work in current versions of DMD? Is
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Tomas Lindquist Olsen
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Jarrett Billingsley
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Max Samukha
>> wrote:
>>>>Also the following doesn't work with dmd, returns 0 for all mem
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Jarrett Billingsley
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Max Samukha
> wrote:
>>>Also the following doesn't work with dmd, returns 0 for all members:
>>>
>>>Base base = new Base;
>>>auto members = __traits(allMembers, typeof(base));
>>>foreach(m; members)
>>
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Robert Fraser
wrote:
> x-code wrote:
>>
>> I want to build last D 2.0 compiler in Microsoft Visual Studio IDE.
>> Prompt me please, what create and adjust *.vcproj project in MSVC
>> 2003/2005/2008 (or *.dsp for VC6) for assembly of the D compiler in
>> Visual Stu
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Christopher Wright wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>>
>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>
>>> Sometimes I run these crazy calculations: how much modern firepower would
>>> be just enough to turn the odds in a classic battle? At Thermopilae, I think
>>> two Vickers with
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 9:33 PM, Tomas Lindquist Olsen
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Walter Bright
> wrote:
>> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>>>
>>> So what about the following counterargument: "even if nightly builds
>>> were made availabl
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Walter Bright
wrote:
> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>>
>> So what about the following counterargument: "even if nightly builds
>> were made available, how can we be sure that enough people are using
>> them to sufficiently test them?" OK, sure, if not many people a
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Walter Bright
wrote:
> Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:
>>
>> I don't necessarily want a 100% stable language. In fact I don't. But
>> obviously asking for both is just silly.
>> The only thing I'm not happy about is if code
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Walter Bright
wrote:
> Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:
>>
>> Which leads me to: If I was to help with a D 1.1 implementation, only
>> features that would not change any semantics of valid D1 code would go
>> in.
>
> But they always
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 9:45 PM, grauzone wrote:
> Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:
>>
>> Which leads me to: If I was to help with a D 1.1 implementation, only
>> features that would not change any semantics of valid D1 code would go
>> in.
>
> Isn't th
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Tomas Lindquist Olsen
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Walter Bright
> wrote:
>> Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 8:17 PM, Walter Bright
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Den
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Walter Bright
wrote:
> Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 8:17 PM, Walter Bright
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Denis Koroskin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> One of the breaking changes that I recal
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 8:17 PM, Walter Bright
wrote:
> Denis Koroskin wrote:
>>
>> One of the breaking changes that I recall was that you made Posix
>> identifier built-in and thus any custom Posix versioning became an
>> error. Not sure if it was introduced in 1.041, though, but it is
>> still a
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
> Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Leandro Lucarella
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Tomas Lindquist Olsen, el 26 de marzo a las 18:18 me escribiste:
>>>>
>
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> Tomas Lindquist Olsen, el 26 de marzo a las 18:18 me escribiste:
>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
>> > ...snip...
>> >
>> > That's why I'd love to see some kind
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> ...snip...
>
> That's why I'd love to see some kind of D 1.1 (maybe LDC could be used to
> make an "unofficial" D 1.1 language), with a few minor non-breaking new
> features over D 1.0, then D 1.2 could introduce some more, and so on. Thi
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 2:10 PM, Daniel Keep
wrote:
>
>
> ValeriM wrote:
>> Ary Borenszweig Wrote:
>>
>>> Mike James escribi�:
What is the state of play with D1.0 vs. D2.0?
Is D1.0 a dead-end and D2.0 should be used for future projects?
Is D2.0 stable enough for use at the
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Walter Bright
wrote:
> ws wrote:
>>
>> Ah, finally I found the culprit!
>> It is the unlocker.exe running in the background, and that crashes windbg
>> running D windows app consistently when it exits. (does not affect the
>> console app).
>> Took me a long time t
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, Walte
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 Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Don wrote:
> Joel C. Salomon wrote:
>>
>> Daniel Keep wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, a..b is very nice. It's also a bad syntax for intervals. As Don
>>> keeps pointing out, you can't have an interval that includes int.max
>>> with that syntax.
>>
>> 4 .. int.$
>>
>> —Joel Sa
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 11:58 AM, bearophile wrote:
> There are some improvements in the last LLVM V.2.5, among them now LLVM
> provides intrinsics for (some) arithmetic with overflow operations:
> http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#int_overflow
>
> Introducing such feature into D (LDC and more) is
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Walter Bright
wrote:
> Mason Green (Zzzzrrr) wrote:
>>
>> When I remove -inline there doesn't seem to
>> be much of a difference in execution speed.
>
> Try running obj2asm to see if the functions you want inlined are actually
> inlined or not.
>
perhaps a verbose
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Don wrote:
> Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Frits van Bommel
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Don wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Frits van Bommel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Frits van Bommel
wrote:
> Don wrote:
>>
>> Frits van Bommel wrote:
>>>
>>> Walter Bright wrote:
Frits van Bommel wrote:
>
> Is it really that hard? Can't you just detect this case (non-void
> function without a 'return' at the end but with inli
? and if not, could we possibly
specify it as implementation specific behaviour.
Everything is in place to specify the D_InlineAsm_X86 version
identifier in LDC, but a lot of asm still isn't going to work, due to
reasons like this.
I hope to hear some feedback on how to move on from here.
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Stewart Gordon wrote:
> ...
> Speaking of which, has anybody tried asking Brad for commit permission on
> an abandoned project in order to revive it?
>
> Stewart.
>
I took over the MinWin project a long time ago, since its author, Ben
Hinkle, had disappeared from
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Don wrote:
> Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Don > nos...@nospam.com>> wrote:
>>
>>Duane Bailey wrote:
>>
>>I am currently porting LDC to PowerPC and, hopefully,
>>
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 6:07 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
> Don wrote:
>
>> I still avoid goto because I was told to. But eventually I realised that
>> it's 100% propaganda. I actually think my code would be cleaner if I used
>> it; it would allow lots of local flag variables to be eliminated.
>> But I
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Don wrote:
> Duane Bailey wrote:
>
>> I am currently porting LDC to PowerPC and, hopefully, eventually the
>> POWER and CELL platforms as well. The first bit requires me to port the
>> inline assembler, allowing me to
>>
> review the problems that the D language p
bearophile wrote:
I have adapted another small benchmark to D. This benchmark is less interesting
than the other ones because it mostly tests the optimizations done by the
back-end. This means it's not a problem of the D language or its front-end, so
even if DMD here shows to be not much effic
Hi all.
I've spent that last weeks rewriting LDC's handling handling of struct/union/class/interface to
match DMD, in terms of datalayout, ABI and correctness in general. It's done now, and seems to
be working well, however, running DStress on the latest revision, a new regression showed up!
Walter Bright wrote:
John Reimer wrote:
So extern(System) does not translate to extern(C)? Does that mean
that all extern(System)'s in my code are defaulting to extern(D)?
That'd be a shocker to me. :) If that's true, it would certainly
change my understanding of what I thought was making
I'm not really sure what I think about all this. I try to always insert
assertions before operations like this, which makes me think the nicest
solution would be if the compiler errors out if it detects a problematic
expression that is unchecked...
uint diff(uint begin, uint end)
{
ret
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Denis Koroskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 22.11.08 в 15:21 Vermi в своём письме писал(а):
>
> Hi,
>> I'm wondering : why the D compiler can't produce x86_64 code ? All seems
>> to be ready in the langage for 64 bits. I need to produce a .dll file in
>> both 32 a
Denis Koroskin wrote:
I can't find a way to get a class sizeof property - it returns 4 (32bit
pointer size) always. I tried many ways but still can't figure out how
to do this. Documentation says that
".sizeof applied to a class object returns the size of the class
reference, not the class in
67 matches
Mail list logo
