On 07.01.2009 05:51, Walter Bright wrote:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
The D2 changelog says that he undid the fix to 2500, which might be
the cause. But no word on whether it was the cause, or if D1 got the
revert as well.
D1 got the same reversion.
1.039 hangs while trying to build my DW
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 12:31 AM, Walter Bright
wrote:
>> Regarding the pure optimizations done by D2, how can the LDC compiler
>> do the same? Are them done by the front-end?
>
> I changed nothing with the compiler. I just rewrote the runtime long
> division function.
>
>
Can you say "non sequit
It appears that you've also fixed
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2359 :D /* which might've
been the same issue as http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2527 */
Perhaps I can finally update from 1.031 :> Thanks a bunch!
--
Tomasz Stachowiak
http://h3.team0xf.com/
h3/h3r3t
Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 07:03:27 +0300, Bill Baxter wrote:
2009/1/7 Walter Bright :
Faster long divides!
No progress on "faster long compiles" though?
--bb
Small statistics on compilation time of my small project:
DMD2.021 - 16 seconds
DMD2.022 - 46 seconds
DMD2.023 -
I'm happy to see Bugzilla 2518(scope(success) not execuate and RAII variable
destructor is not called) has been fixed, Great !
I have some questions when I check dstress suite and Bugzilla.
In Bugzilla 99, according to test case:
int main(){
int i;
label:
{
"2527: Alias Template Params Are Always Same Type As First Instantiation
(according to typeof(x).stringof)"
Hooray! Thanks :) That one's a big help for me.
torhu wrote:
1.039 hangs while trying to build my DWT app, just like 1.038 did. It
just seems to never finish, so I kill it after a while. Don't know if
it's related to this issue or not.
I need a reproducible example.
redsea wrote:
I'm happy to see Bugzilla 2518(scope(success) not execuate and RAII
variable destructor is not called) has been fixed, Great !
I have some questions when I check dstress suite and Bugzilla.
In Bugzilla 99, according to test case:
int main(){ int i; label: { scope(exit) i++; i=3
Walter Bright Wrote:
> redsea wrote:
> > I'm happy to see Bugzilla 2518(scope(success) not execuate and RAII
> > variable destructor is not called) has been fixed, Great !
> >
> > I have some questions when I check dstress suite and Bugzilla.
> >
> > In Bugzilla 99, according to test case:
> >
Walter Bright Wrote:
> Faster long divides!
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.039.zip
>
>
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.023.zip
It's nice to see the backend uses pure. When will Phobo
Jason House wrote:
Walter Bright Wrote:
Faster long divides!
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.039.zip
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.023.zip
It's nice to see the backend uses pure. When will
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 05:09:50 +0300, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Jason House wrote:
Walter Bright Wrote:
Faster long divides!
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.039.zip
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
http://ftp.digitalmars.com
Jason House wrote:
> Walter Bright Wrote:
>
>> redsea wrote:
>>> I'm happy to see Bugzilla 2518(scope(success) not execuate and RAII
>>> variable destructor is not called) has been fixed, Great !
>>>
>>> I have some questions when I check dstress suite and Bugzilla.
>>>
>>> In Bugzilla 99, accord
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 06:25:11 +0300, Brad Roberts wrote:
Jason House wrote:
Walter Bright Wrote:
redsea wrote:
I'm happy to see Bugzilla 2518(scope(success) not execuate and RAII
variable destructor is not called) has been fixed, Great !
I have some questions when I check dstress suite and
Reply to Brad,
Restating in the form of a question... When would you _ever_ want
{...} to not form a scope?
static if(foo)
{
int i;
float x;
}
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 07:22:53 +0300, BCS wrote:
Reply to Brad,
Restating in the form of a question... When would you _ever_ want
{...} to not form a scope?
static if(foo)
{
int i;
float x;
}
Yeah, and version(foo) belongs here, too.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Denis Koroskin <2kor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 07:22:53 +0300, BCS wrote:
>
>> Reply to Brad,
>>
>>> Restating in the form of a question... When would you _ever_ want
>>> {...} to not form a scope?
>>>
>>
>> static if(foo)
>> {
>>int i;
>>fl
BCS wrote:
> Reply to Brad,
>
>> Restating in the form of a question... When would you _ever_ want
>> {...} to not form a scope?
>>
>
> static if(foo)
> {
>int i;
>float x;
> }
>
That and the version one are good examples.
However, the case example isn't. It actually already forms a s
Brad Roberts wrote:
Jason House wrote:
I don't think this answers their question. What curly braces mean
after a label is clearly a design decision that you made when writing
D. It seems that the choice is the opposite of what people expect.
Can you explain why it should be NonScope?
Restating
19 matches
Mail list logo
