On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 02:16:19 -0700, timotheecour
wrote:
mixin Instantiate!(foo,int);
Thanks for the syntax tip!
You could use cp instead of dmd -H.
That won't produce the same output (eg large functions tend to be
stripped currently), but I guess the current behavior is relatively
usel
mixin Instantiate!(foo,int);
Thanks for the syntax tip!
You could use cp instead of dmd -H.
That won't produce the same output (eg large functions tend to be
stripped currently), but I guess the current behavior is
relatively useless so it's fine.
want you are after. Such a thing could ac
On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 04:55:37 -0700, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 06/11/2012 09:37 AM, timotheecour wrote:
questions:
A) as I understand it, the new di generation will systematically strip
out the implementation of
non-auto-return, non-templated functions, is that correct?
This is my understandi
On 06/11/2012 09:37 AM, timotheecour wrote:
questions:
A) as I understand it, the new di generation will systematically strip out the
implementation of
non-auto-return, non-templated functions, is that correct?
This is my understanding as well.
B) since there are some important differences
questions:
A) as I understand it, the new di generation will systematically
strip out the implementation of non-auto-return, non-templated
functions, is that correct?
B) since there are some important differences with the current di
files (in terms of inlining optimization, etc), will there
On Mon, 21 May 2012 05:12:32 -0700, dawg wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 May 2012 at 06:46:58 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 14 May 2012 23:11:50 -0700, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Monday, May 14, 2012 23:03:20 Adam Wilson wrote:
I have updated the make files so that only core.thread and
core.syn
On Tuesday, 15 May 2012 at 06:46:58 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 14 May 2012 23:11:50 -0700, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Monday, May 14, 2012 23:03:20 Adam Wilson wrote:
I have updated the make files so that only core.thread and
core.sync.* are
run through DI generation. ALL other core.* m
On Wed, 16 May 2012 05:46:44 -0700, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2012 05:51:44 -0400, kenji hara
wrote:
Old days import/core/thread.di was generated from src/core/thread.d .
Current import/core/thread.di is generated from src/core/thread.*di* .
Huh? Why the copy? Just m
On Wed, 16 May 2012 14:37:46 -0700, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 10:00:24 Adam Wilson wrote:
The biggest problem right now is that, while we all agree that these
changes need to happen, getting them merged appears to be nigh
impossible.
There appears to be a bottlene
On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 10:00:24 Adam Wilson wrote:
> The biggest problem right now is that, while we all agree that these
> changes need to happen, getting them merged appears to be nigh impossible.
> There appears to be a bottleneck in the process caused by the lack of
> capable persons to ver
On 16-05-2012 19:00, Adam Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2012 05:46:44 -0700, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2012 05:51:44 -0400, kenji hara
wrote:
Old days import/core/thread.di was generated from src/core/thread.d .
Current import/core/thread.di is generated from src/core/thread
On Wed, 16 May 2012 05:46:44 -0700, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2012 05:51:44 -0400, kenji hara
wrote:
Old days import/core/thread.di was generated from src/core/thread.d .
Current import/core/thread.di is generated from src/core/thread.*di* .
Huh? Why the copy? Just m
On 16-05-2012 14:46, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2012 05:51:44 -0400, kenji hara wrote:
Old days import/core/thread.di was generated from src/core/thread.d .
Current import/core/thread.di is generated from src/core/thread.*di* .
Huh? Why the copy? Just move src/core/thread.di
On Tue, 15 May 2012 05:51:44 -0400, kenji hara wrote:
Old days import/core/thread.di was generated from src/core/thread.d .
Current import/core/thread.di is generated from src/core/thread.*di* .
Huh? Why the copy? Just move src/core/thread.di to import/core/thread.di
object.di lives in imp
On Tue, 15 May 2012 02:51:44 -0700, kenji hara wrote:
Old days import/core/thread.di was generated from src/core/thread.d .
Current import/core/thread.di is generated from src/core/thread.*di* .
Kenji Hara
Well, I've updated the make file to just copy thread.di instead of running
it throug
Old days import/core/thread.di was generated from src/core/thread.d .
Current import/core/thread.di is generated from src/core/thread.*di* .
Kenji Hara
2012/5/15 Jonathan M Davis :
> On Monday, May 14, 2012 23:46:08 Adam Wilson wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 May 2012 23:11:50 -0700, Jonathan M Davis
>>
>>
On Monday, May 14, 2012 23:46:08 Adam Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, 14 May 2012 23:11:50 -0700, Jonathan M Davis
>
> wrote:
> > On Monday, May 14, 2012 23:03:20 Adam Wilson wrote:
> >> I have updated the make files so that only core.thread and core.sync.*
> >> are
> >> run through DI generation. ALL ot
On Mon, 14 May 2012 23:11:50 -0700, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Monday, May 14, 2012 23:03:20 Adam Wilson wrote:
I have updated the make files so that only core.thread and core.sync.*
are
run through DI generation. ALL other core.* modules are copied into the
import directory now.
I assum
On Monday, May 14, 2012 23:03:20 Adam Wilson wrote:
> I have updated the make files so that only core.thread and core.sync.* are
> run through DI generation. ALL other core.* modules are copied into the
> import directory now.
I assume that object.di and core/thread.di are being used rather than t
On Mon, 14 May 2012 16:50:24 -0700, Adam Wilson wrote:
I am formally requesting review of the two pull requests that make up my
DI Generation Improvements patch.
The first pull is against the DRuntime and modifies the makefiles such
some files in the DRT are not generated as DI files but copie
On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 03:20:24 Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> On 15-05-2012 02:59, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Monday, May 14, 2012 17:36:49 Adam Wilson wrote:
> >> This can be easily changed. Does anyone see any potential problems with
> >> making this change?
> >
> > The only modules in drun
On Tuesday, 15 May 2012 at 00:25:15 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen
wrote:
On 15-05-2012 02:20, Tyro[17] wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 May 2012 at 00:02:23 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen
[snip]
I would suggest excluding core.[atomic,cpuid,demangle] from DI
generation, too, and just copy them. I don't see any reaso
On 15-05-2012 02:59, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Monday, May 14, 2012 17:36:49 Adam Wilson wrote:
This can be easily changed. Does anyone see any potential problems with
making this change?
The only modules in druntime that I am aware of where there would be actual
problems if their .d files we
On Monday, May 14, 2012 17:36:49 Adam Wilson wrote:
> This can be easily changed. Does anyone see any potential problems with
> making this change?
The only modules in druntime that I am aware of where there would be actual
problems if their .d files were used instead of .di files would be those
On Mon, 14 May 2012 17:02:23 -0700, Alex Rønne Petersen
wrote:
On 15-05-2012 01:50, Adam Wilson wrote:
I am formally requesting review of the two pull requests that make up my
DI Generation Improvements patch.
The first pull is against the DRuntime and modifies the makefiles such
some files i
On 15-05-2012 02:20, Tyro[17] wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 May 2012 at 00:02:23 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 15-05-2012 01:50, Adam Wilson wrote:
I am formally requesting review of the two pull requests that make up my
DI Generation Improvements patch.
The first pull is against the DRuntime and
On Tuesday, 15 May 2012 at 00:02:23 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen
wrote:
On 15-05-2012 01:50, Adam Wilson wrote:
I am formally requesting review of the two pull requests that
make up my
DI Generation Improvements patch.
The first pull is against the DRuntime and modifies the
makefiles such
some fi
On 15-05-2012 01:50, Adam Wilson wrote:
I am formally requesting review of the two pull requests that make up my
DI Generation Improvements patch.
The first pull is against the DRuntime and modifies the makefiles such
some files in the DRT are not generated as DI files but copied from the D
sour
I am formally requesting review of the two pull requests that make up my
DI Generation Improvements patch.
The first pull is against the DRuntime and modifies the makefiles such
some files in the DRT are not generated as DI files but copied from the D
source files directly into the DI file. This
I am formally requesting review of the two pull requests that make up my
DI Generation Improvements patch.
The first pull is against the DRuntime and modifies the makefiles such
some files in the DRT are not generated as DI files but copied from the D
source files directly into the DI file. This
30 matches
Mail list logo
