"Walter Bright" wrote in message
news:gkel5h$2tq...@digitalmars.com...
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> The following is about the best I could do.
>
> Thanks, can you add this to bugzilla?
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2582
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
The following is about the best I could do.
Thanks, can you add this to bugzilla?
"Walter Bright" wrote in message
news:gkb1dd$3g...@digitalmars.com...
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> Ok, I found the examples you were talking about, they were in
>> "dwt-samples\snippets", not "dwt-samples\examples". I'm getting the same
>> results as you for both "tree\Snippet15.d" and "treeedit
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Ok, I found the examples you were talking about, they were in
"dwt-samples\snippets", not "dwt-samples\examples". I'm getting the same
results as you for both "tree\Snippet15.d" and "treeeditor\Snippet111.d".
Both compile fine in just over 30 sec on 1.037. On 1.039 "tree\
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Tim M wrote:
>
>>
>> DMD linker is often hangs for indefined amount of time. I'm already used
>> to killing the link.exe process and re-running linking step. It happens to
>> me in about 5-10% of times. Non-deterministic, non-reproducable.
>>
>
> To help prove a po
DMD linker is often hangs for indefined amount of time. I'm already used
to killing the link.exe process and re-running linking step. It happens
to me in about 5-10% of times. Non-deterministic, non-reproducable.
To help prove a possible bug, I've also noticed this. Seems quite random
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 09:23:53 +0300, Bill Baxter wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Bill Baxter" wrote in message
news:mailman.355.1231561916.22690.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
The DWT compile times do still seem to be sky-high even after the
reversion in DMD 1
"Nick Sabalausky" wrote in message
news:gk9jp0$pf...@digitalmars.com...
> "Nick Sabalausky" wrote in message
> news:gk9hub$n0...@digitalmars.com...
>> "Bill Baxter" wrote in message
>> news:mailman.360.1231568636.22690.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
>>> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Nick S
"Nick Sabalausky" wrote in message
news:gk9hub$n0...@digitalmars.com...
> "Bill Baxter" wrote in message
> news:mailman.360.1231568636.22690.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
>> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>> "Bill Baxter" wrote in message
>>> news:mailman.355.123156
"Bill Baxter" wrote in message
news:mailman.360.1231568636.22690.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Bill Baxter" wrote in message
>> news:mailman.355.1231561916.22690.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
>>> The DWT compile times do still seem
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Bill Baxter" wrote in message
> news:mailman.355.1231561916.22690.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
>> The DWT compile times do still seem to be sky-high even after the
>> reversion in DMD 1.039.
>>
>> I just tried building the dwt-samples\t
"Bill Baxter" wrote in message
news:mailman.355.1231561916.22690.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
> The DWT compile times do still seem to be sky-high even after the
> reversion in DMD 1.039.
>
> I just tried building the dwt-samples\treeeditor\Snippet111.d, for
> instance and it's taking insanely
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Tim M wrote:
> How do you rate 1.038 compile time?
It was also bad. I was thinking 1.039 was better but it's possible I
just compiled a different program with it I figured the programs were
similar enough that if it affected on then it would affect the other,
bu
How do you rate 1.038 compile time?
The DWT compile times do still seem to be sky-high even after the
reversion in DMD 1.039.
I just tried building the dwt-samples\treeeditor\Snippet111.d, for
instance and it's taking insanely long.
Switch back to DMD 1.037 and it compiles in well under a minute.
So my guess is that nobody else bu
15 matches
Mail list logo
