[Issue 5657] Temporary object destruction

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5657 --- Comment #4 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2011-04-14 01:18:34 PDT --- Created an attachment (id=942) Test code. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail

[Issue 5844] New: DMD crash on infinite-recursive variadic template pure auto function

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5844 Summary: DMD crash on infinite-recursive variadic template pure auto function Product: D Version: D2 Platform: Other OS/Version: Mac OS X Status: NEW

[Issue 5657] Temporary object destruction

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5657 --- Comment #5 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2011-04-14 01:21:22 PDT --- Created an attachment (id=943) Test results by patched dmd. (In reply to comment #3) Code in online paste sites like ideone often gets deleted. So I suggest to

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #88 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-04-14 02:06:33 PDT --- (In reply to comment #87) 1. distinguishing real pointers from might-be-a-pointer (such as you might get from union { int a; void* p; }). In C unions are not tagged,

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #89 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2011-04-14 02:23:28 PDT --- (In reply to comment #88) In order to support C compatibility, untagged unions must be supported by the type system and the GC. -- Configure issuemail:

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #90 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-04-14 03:58:52 PDT --- (In reply to comment #89) (In reply to comment #88) In order to support C compatibility, untagged unions must be supported by the type system and the GC. Right, but

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #92 from David Simcha dsim...@yahoo.com 2011-04-14 06:04:04 PDT --- (In reply to comment #91) Yes and no. Consider right now (although I think David fixed this), we allocate a bit for every 16 bytes of a page, even if the whole

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #93 from Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com 2011-04-14 06:21:29 PDT --- You can take a look at my concurrent D GC (CDGC), which is also precise. It is based on the work done by nfx...@gmail.com (which is based on the work done by

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #95 from Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com 2011-04-14 12:25:48 PDT --- (In reply to comment #94) I think that covers things, except for handling ambiguous pointers. Can you explain why we care about ambiguous pointers?

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #96 from Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com 2011-04-14 12:32:49 PDT --- (In reply to comment #95) (In reply to comment #94) I think that covers things, except for handling ambiguous pointers. Can you explain why we care

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #97 from Andrei Alexandrescu and...@metalanguage.com 2011-04-14 13:00:36 PDT --- (In reply to comment #96) (In reply to comment #95) (In reply to comment #94) I think that covers things, except for handling ambiguous

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #103 from Andrei Alexandrescu and...@metalanguage.com 2011-04-14 15:08:15 PDT --- (In reply to comment #102) (In reply to comment #100) (In reply to comment #99) (In reply to comment #98) The work on improving

[Issue 1463] __traits: indexed template parsed as type, not value

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1463 Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Issue 2686] Invalid union initializer is accepted

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2686 Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Issue 1499] __trais: iterating over __traits(allMembers, ...) with extern attributes does not compile

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1499 Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Issue 1532] Template instance cannot use class locals as template parameters

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1532 Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Issue 1599] compile time evaluation with immutable problem

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1599 Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clugd...@yahoo.com.au

[Issue 2706] invalid template instantiation (and declaration?) is not rejected

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2706 Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clugd...@yahoo.com.au ---

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #104 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2011-04-14 15:47:25 PDT --- (In reply to comment #103) I was thinking that the compiler could generate D code that does the scanning instead of us defining a DSL for that. That's

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #105 from Andrei Alexandrescu and...@metalanguage.com 2011-04-14 16:00:24 PDT --- (In reply to comment #104) (In reply to comment #103) I was thinking that the compiler could generate D code that does the scanning instead

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #106 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2011-04-14 16:25:11 PDT --- (In reply to comment #105) I think it's just a simple idea. You do generate code for constructors etc. already... The main challenge would be finding

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 Vladimir thecybersha...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #108 from David Simcha dsim...@yahoo.com 2011-04-14 17:08:48 PDT --- (In reply to comment #107) Am I the only one who is concerned with the performance implications of complicating the garbage collector any further, especially

[Issue 4438] A missed function inlining

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4438 --- Comment #4 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-04-14 17:25:38 PDT --- A different case of missed inlining. In the following code isValidMove() is not inlined by DMD 2.052 (with -O -inline -release), despite this function contains no loop and

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #110 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-04-14 17:36:47 PDT --- (In reply to comment #109) (In reply to comment #108) That's why heap allocations in real-time code are a bad idea. This patch won't change that. Um, no, the

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #111 from Vladimir thecybersha...@gmail.com 2011-04-14 17:44:29 PDT --- (In reply to comment #110) Because currently the GC gets called when you allocate heap memory. Thanks for teaching me how garbage collectors work. I had no

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #112 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2011-04-14 17:48:22 PDT --- (In reply to comment #110) And allocating heap memory (for objects, structs, dynamic arrays, closures, array concatenations, etc) between two frames of

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #113 from Vladimir thecybersha...@gmail.com 2011-04-14 18:00:14 PDT --- (In reply to comment #112) Anything with hard realtime requirements cannot do allocation - even in C/C++, malloc() does not have an upper limit on its time.

[Issue 5845] New: [CTFE] stack overflow with ref ulong argument + CTFE benchmark

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5845 Summary: [CTFE] stack overflow with ref ulong argument + CTFE benchmark Product: D Version: D2 Platform: x86 OS/Version: Windows Status: NEW Keywords:

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #114 from David Simcha dsim...@yahoo.com 2011-04-14 18:23:13 PDT --- (In reply to comment #113) (In reply to comment #112) Anything with hard realtime requirements cannot do allocation - even in C/C++, malloc() does not

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #117 from Vladimir thecybersha...@gmail.com 2011-04-14 19:06:29 PDT --- (In reply to comment #116) Yes, they do. It's called the frame rate. (Though I'd guess to be technical, this a soft-realtime requirement.) That's exactly

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #118 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2011-04-14 19:34:40 PDT --- (In reply to comment #117) I hope it is as you say it is, but without benchmarks it's hard to say anything, and this talk of state machines etc. is

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #120 from Vladimir thecybersha...@gmail.com 2011-04-14 19:50:08 PDT --- (In reply to comment #118) I hope it is as you say it is, but without benchmarks it's hard to say anything, and this talk of state machines etc. is

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #121 from David Simcha dsim...@yahoo.com 2011-04-14 19:59:28 PDT --- (In reply to comment #120) I understand the advantages of a moving GC - heap compaction allowing for an overall smaller managed heap etc., but I hope you

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||llu...@gmail.com

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #123 from Vladimir thecybersha...@gmail.com 2011-04-14 20:09:13 PDT --- (In reply to comment #121) Your case is a niche case and calls for a niche garbage collector implementation. I would like to ask you to reconsider that

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #124 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2011-04-14 20:26:14 PDT --- (In reply to comment #122) PS: Yeah, for some reason I still get the e-mails even when I removed myself from te Cc =/ Just when I thought I was out...

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #125 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2011-04-14 20:33:11 PDT --- (In reply to comment #120) I understand the advantages of a moving GC - heap compaction allowing for an overall smaller managed heap etc., but I hope