On 1/24/12 5:37 AM, Don Clugston wrote:
On 20/01/12 01:25, Trass3r wrote:
Could we please have at least a warning if code isn't compatible with
64Bit?
It's really annoying to test out some code and having to fix a bunch of
stupid uint->size_t bugs just because the author is still on a 32 bit
mac
On 24 January 2012 12:32, Stewart Gordon wrote:
> On 24/01/2012 10:37, Don Clugston wrote:
>
>
>> IMHO the ideal solution would be:
>> - treat size_t as a magical type (not a simple alias).
>> - allow size_t -> uint if you are in a machine-specific version statement
>> that implies 32
>> bits (eg
On 24/01/2012 10:37, Don Clugston wrote:
IMHO the ideal solution would be:
- treat size_t as a magical type (not a simple alias).
- allow size_t -> uint if you are in a machine-specific version statement that
implies 32
bits (eg, version(D_InlineAsm_X86), version(Win32), version(X86)).
- allow
On 20/01/12 01:25, Trass3r wrote:
Could we please have at least a warning if code isn't compatible with
64Bit?
It's really annoying to test out some code and having to fix a bunch of
stupid uint->size_t bugs just because the author is still on a 32 bit
machine.
Is that feasible?
IMHO the idea
On Saturday, January 21, 2012 07:53:51 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Trass3r" wrote in message news:op.v8flqsr63ncmek@enigma...
>
> >> Couldn't it be handled by a special switch on 64 bit compilers, and
> >> disabled normally?
> >
> > Theoretically yes, but it would destroy the original intention.
>
On 21/01/2012 13:33, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
On Saturday, 21 January 2012 at 12:53:27 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Trass3r" wrote in message
news:op.v8flqsr63ncmek@enigma...
Couldn't it be handled by a special switch on 64 bit compilers, and
disabled normally?
Theoretically yes, but it wou
Stewart Gordon:
> From what I gather, some C++ compilers do more than this: they have a
> built-in
> understanding of the STL types, which they can use to optimise operations on
> them better
> than can be done in the code implementations of them.
I presume future D compilers will recognize
"Trass3r" wrote in message news:op.v8flqsr63ncmek@enigma...
>> Couldn't it be handled by a special switch on 64 bit compilers, and
>> disabled normally?
>
> Theoretically yes, but it would destroy the original intention.
> Ensuring 64 bit compatibility is as easy as compiling with -m64 from time
On Saturday, 21 January 2012 at 12:53:27 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
"Trass3r" wrote in message
news:op.v8flqsr63ncmek@enigma...
Couldn't it be handled by a special switch on 64 bit
compilers, and disabled normally?
Theoretically yes, but it would destroy the original intention.
Ensuring 64 b
On 21/01/2012 11:43, Peter Alexander wrote:
size_t is defined in druntime as an alias to uint/ulong.
In C++ too, size_t is defined in the standard library.
The compiler is unaware of any special status that it may have.
The whole point of what I'm saying is that it doesn't need to be.
wri
Or they're on windows.
No excuse. Now there are prebuilt gdc packages :)
On 21/01/12 12:48 AM, Stewart Gordon wrote:
On 20/01/2012 00:46, Peter Alexander wrote:
On 20/01/12 12:25 AM, Trass3r wrote:
Could we please have at least a warning if code isn't compatible with
64Bit?
It's really annoying to test out some code and having to fix a bunch of
stupid uint->size_t b
Couldn't it be handled by a special switch on 64 bit compilers, and
disabled normally?
Theoretically yes, but it would destroy the original intention.
Ensuring 64 bit compatibility is as easy as compiling with -m64 from time
to time, but some people can't be bothered.
They won't use a new sw
Am 21.01.2012, 02:16 Uhr, schrieb Timon Gehr :
On 01/21/2012 01:48 AM, Stewart Gordon wrote:
On 20/01/2012 00:46, Peter Alexander wrote:
On 20/01/12 12:25 AM, Trass3r wrote:
Could we please have at least a warning if code isn't compatible with
64Bit?
It's really annoying to test out some code
On 01/20/2012 08:24 PM, Matt Soucy wrote:
On 01/20/2012 08:21 PM, Stewart Gordon wrote:
On 21/01/2012 01:16, Timon Gehr wrote:
I generally like the idea of making size_t strongly typed, but
that would necessitate X!size_t to become a distinct instantiation
from X!uint or X!ulong.
Furthermore,
On 01/20/2012 08:21 PM, Stewart Gordon wrote:
On 21/01/2012 01:16, Timon Gehr wrote:
I generally like the idea of making size_t strongly typed, but
that would necessitate X!size_t to become a distinct instantiation
from X!uint or X!ulong.
Furthermore, it would break all existing D programs that
On 21/01/2012 01:16, Timon Gehr wrote:
I generally like the idea of making size_t strongly typed, but
that would necessitate X!size_t to become a distinct instantiation from X!uint
or X!ulong.
Furthermore, it would break all existing D programs that are deliberately not
64 bit aware
=).
You
On 01/21/2012 01:48 AM, Stewart Gordon wrote:
On 20/01/2012 00:46, Peter Alexander wrote:
On 20/01/12 12:25 AM, Trass3r wrote:
Could we please have at least a warning if code isn't compatible with
64Bit?
It's really annoying to test out some code and having to fix a bunch of
stupid uint->size_t
On 20/01/2012 00:46, Peter Alexander wrote:
On 20/01/12 12:25 AM, Trass3r wrote:
Could we please have at least a warning if code isn't compatible with
64Bit?
It's really annoying to test out some code and having to fix a bunch of
stupid uint->size_t bugs just because the author is still on a 32
On 20/01/12 12:25 AM, Trass3r wrote:
Could we please have at least a warning if code isn't compatible with
64Bit?
It's really annoying to test out some code and having to fix a bunch of
stupid uint->size_t bugs just because the author is still on a 32 bit
machine.
Is that feasible?
In general,
Trass3r:
> Could we please have at least a warning if code isn't compatible with
> 64Bit?
> It's really annoying to test out some code and having to fix a bunch of
> stupid uint->size_t bugs just because the author is still on a 32 bit
> machine.
>
> Is that feasible?
Time ago I have sugge
Could we please have at least a warning if code isn't compatible with
64Bit?
It's really annoying to test out some code and having to fix a bunch of
stupid uint->size_t bugs just because the author is still on a 32 bit
machine.
Is that feasible?
22 matches
Mail list logo
