http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5278
--- Comment #7 from Chad Joan 2010-12-06 23:44:30 PST ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Does this bug report shed any light, specifically the part about changing the
> CHOST towards the bottom of the report? (I'm not a gentoo user, just using
> g
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5328
Don changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clugd...@yahoo.com.au
--- Comment #2 from Don 2
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5294
Walter Bright changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugzi...@digitalmars.com
--- Comment #
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5278
--- Comment #6 from Brad Roberts 2010-12-06 20:05:09 PST
---
Does this bug report shed any light, specifically the part about changing the
CHOST towards the bottom of the report? (I'm not a gentoo user, just using
google to investigate simila
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5278
--- Comment #5 from Chad Joan 2010-12-06 19:35:47 PST ---
Alright, here goes:
c...@hugin ~/cprojects/ctesting $ gcc -v trivial.c -m32 -o trivial
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.3.2/specs
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Config
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5278
--- Comment #4 from Brad Roberts 2010-12-06 18:38:25 PST
---
Try "gcc -v trivial.c -m32 -o trivial" to see which linker is being invoked in
the working 32 bit case.
Also try "gcc -v trivial.c -o trivial -m32" to closer match the way dmd is
in
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5278
--- Comment #3 from Chad Joan 2010-12-06 18:12:22 PST ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Something looks wrong with your 32 bit gcc installation. Notice that gcc is
> invoking the 64 bit linker. Can you successfully build any 32 bit C apps with
>
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5100
--- Comment #4 from Iain Buclaw 2010-12-06 14:51:32 PST ---
objdump without -O on Linux:
push %ebp
mov%esp,%ebp
sub$0x4,%esp
movl $0x0,-0x4(%ebp)
cmpl $0x7fff,-0x4(%ebp)
jge1c <_Dmain+0x1c>
addl $0x1,-0x4(%ebp)
jmpd
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2954
Walter Bright changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1382
Rob Jacques changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandf...@jhu.edu
--- Comment #7 from Rob
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5294
--- Comment #7 from Don 2010-12-06 11:53:27 PST ---
Bearophile -- That's an interesting link. Currently, DMD back-end bugs are
being found at the rate of about 3 per year. So yes, fuzzy testing of DMC could
probably flush out some backend bugs
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3554
Walter Bright changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5328
nfx...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nfx...@gmail.com
Version|D
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5328
Summary: The addressof-expression that should be rejected is
accepted
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: Other
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Keywords: acc
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5327
Summary: Immutable correctness is broken
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: DMD
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5294
--- Comment #6 from Stephan Dilly 2010-12-06 03:32:26 PST
---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Automatic fuzzy testing like this
kidding me ? I wish it would have been found by any test, it appeared in an
actual project. while i converted some C co
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3971
Stewart Gordon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||s...@iname.com
--- Comment #16 from S
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5294
--- Comment #5 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2010-12-06 03:15:42 PST ---
Automatic fuzzy testing like this one allows to discover compiler bugs like
that:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/summit2010?action=AttachFile&do=view&target=regehr_gcc_summit_2010.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5326
--- Comment #2 from nfx...@gmail.com 2010-12-06 02:15:59 PST ---
PS: scope doesn't work on arrays. Your example code never explicitly free's the
memory.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5326
nfx...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nfx...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3971
Denis Derman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||denis.s...@gmail.com
--- Comment #15 fr
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5100
Don changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clugd...@yahoo.com.au
--- Comment #3 from Don 2
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3659
Don changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid, spec
CC|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5314
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan M Davis 2010-12-06 00:21:15
PST ---
@nfxjfg
This program shows when init, a constructor, the postblit constructor, and
opAssign are used:
import std.stdio;
struct Foo
{
int a = 7;
this(int a)
{
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5094
Walter Bright changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
25 matches
Mail list logo