"Daniel Keep" wrote in message
news:hse30q$1tn...@digitalmars.com...
>
> That's right, it's time for everyone's favourite [1] game: guess why
> OPTLINK's not working! [2]
>
> *sigh* I'm writing a math eval library. There are two test
> applications. LexerTest only touches part of the code. As
"div0" wrote in message
news:hshfe9$o0...@digitalmars.com...
>
> Strange what OPTLINK is doing; normally it crashes at the drop of a hat,
> so it seems unreasonable that it processes the .obj a bit then
> (un)successfully exits. Maybe the .obj is corrupt in some way that makes
> it look empty, so
Walter Bright:
>In my view, such switches are bad news, because:<
The Intel compiler, Microsoft compiler, GCC and LLVM have a similar switch
(fp:fast in the Microsoft compiler, -ffast-math on GCC, etc). So you might send
your list of comments to the devs of each of those four compilers.
I have
Steven Schveighoffer:
> No, I was simply wrong :) I think it's by design. Which means the
> original bug report is valid.
The original bug report is valid, but I don't understand that code still. Is
the const implying a static only in some situations?
Why is this OK for the compiler:
struct
On Mon, 17 May 2010 16:38:49 -0400, Larry Luther
wrote:
Hi, Dan used the following method for his vector class:
void opOpAssign (string op:"+=")(ref Vector3 other) {...}
Why the "ref"? As I understand it, objects of class vector
would already be passed as references.
Larry
Yes, ref
Hi, Dan used the following method for his vector class:
void opOpAssign (string op:"+=")(ref Vector3 other) {...}
Why the "ref"? As I understand it, objects of class vector
would already be passed as references.
Larry
On Mon, 17 May 2010 15:31:23 -0400, bearophile
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer:
Unlike some languages, D1 const does not imply static. Which means you
are trying to define an S as containing an S, which would then contain
another S and so on.
It seems the const implies static, in structs...
Robert Clipsham:
> The closest I've managed with my quick attempt is:
>
> mixin template typeOf()
> {
> alias typeof(this) typeOf;
> }
> struct Foo
> {
> int x;
> mixin typeOf;
> }
Thank you for your code :-) Your example shows this feature can become a
built-in.
> I cha
Steven Schveighoffer:
> Unlike some languages, D1 const does not imply static. Which means you
> are trying to define an S as containing an S, which would then contain
> another S and so on.
It seems the const implies static, in structs... I don't know if this is by
design, or it's a compiler b
bearophile wrote:
So I have added an extra "unsafe floating point" optimization:
ldc -O3 -release -inline -enable-unsafe-fp-math -output-s test
In my view, such switches are bad news, because:
1. very few people understand the issues regarding wrong floating point
optimizations
2. even tho
On Mon, 17 May 2010 10:28:47 -0400, strtr wrote:
== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schvei...@yahoo.com)'s article
On Sat, 15 May 2010 16:15:23 -0400, strtr wrote:
> Should I report these bugs?
> (and how should I call this first one?)
>
> module main;
> //const S S1 = S(); // uncomment
== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schvei...@yahoo.com)'s article
> On Sat, 15 May 2010 16:15:23 -0400, strtr wrote:
> > Should I report these bugs?
> > (and how should I call this first one?)
> >
> > module main;
> > //const S S1 = S(); // uncomment this to compile
> > struct S
> > {
> >
Hello Don,
The most glaring limitation of the FP optimiser is that it seems to
never keep values in the FP stack. So that it will often do:
FSTP x
FLD x
instead of FST x
Fixing this would probably give a speedup of ~20% on almost all FP
code, and would unlock the path to further optimisation.
On Sat, 15 May 2010 16:15:23 -0400, strtr wrote:
Should I report these bugs?
(and how should I call this first one?)
module main;
//const S S1 = S(); // uncomment this to compile
struct S
{
float value;
static S opCall()
{
S s;
return s;
}
const S S2 = S();
}
void main(){
On Fri, 14 May 2010 12:40:52 -0400, bearophile
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer:
In C/C++, the default value for doubles is 0.
I think in C and C++ the default value for doubles is "uninitialized"
(that is anything).
You are probably right. All I did to figure this out is print out the
f
Walter Bright wrote:
Don wrote:
bearophile wrote:
kai:
Any ideas? Am I somehow not hitting a vital compiler optimization?
DMD compiler doesn't perform many optimizations, especially on
floating point computations.
More precisely:
In terms of optimizations performed, DMD isn't too far behi
Walter Bright:
> is not done because of roundoff error. Also,
> 0 * x => 0
> is also not done because it is not a correct replacement if x is a NaN.
I have done a little experiment, compiling this D1 code with LDC:
import tango.stdc.stdio: printf;
void main(char[][] args) {
double x = c
17 matches
Mail list logo
