On Sunday, 15 April 2012 at 02:56:21 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
wrote:
On Saturday, 14 April 2012 at 19:51:21 UTC, Joseph Rushton
Wakeling wrote:
GDC has all the regular gcc optimization flags available
IIRC. The ones on the
GDC man page are just the ones specific to GDC.
I'm not talking
On 15/04/12 09:23, ReneSac wrote:
What really amazes me is the difference between g++, DMD and GDC in size of
the executable binary. 100 orders of magnitude!
I have remarked it in another topic before, with a simple hello world. I need
to update there, now that I got DMD working. BTW, it is 2
On 15/04/12 10:29, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
... the compiler accepts it. Whether that's because it's acceptably pure, or
because the compiler just doesn't detect this case of impurity, is another
matter. The int k is certainly mutable from outside the scope of the function,
so AFAICS it
On 15.04.2012 12:29, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 15/04/12 09:23, ReneSac wrote:
What really amazes me is the difference between g++, DMD and GDC in
size of
the executable binary. 100 orders of magnitude!
I have remarked it in another topic before, with a simple hello
world. I need
to
I'm trying to implement a clock thread that sends messages and get
blocked when the message queue it's full.
So I try this:
void func() {
int n;
while (1) {
receive( (int i) { writeln(n, : Received the number , i); n++;}
);
}
}
void clock() {
receive((Tid tid) {
while (1) {
Auto response :
the main thread ends, and It signal func to end, so It never receive
any message from clock. I fix it, doing that main sleep 1000 seconds
after sending func Tid to clock
Luis Panadero Guardeño wrote:
I'm trying to implement a clock thread that sends messages and get
blocked
hi,
I have this code:
import std.conv, std.stdio, std.stream, std.string;
import std.socket, std.socketstream;
import std.datetime;
class Algorisme(U,V) {
string nom;
uint versio;
V delegate (U) funcio;
}
int main(string [] args)
{
auto alg = Algorisme!(int,int);
alg.nom
On Sunday, 15 April 2012 at 11:16:43 UTC, Xan wrote:
int main(string [] args)
{
auto alg = Algorisme!(int,int);
Should be:
auto alg = new Algorisme!(int, int);
alg.nom = Doblar;
alg.versio = 1;
alg.funcio = (int a) {return 2*a};
Should be:
alg.funcio = (int a)
On Apr 15, 2012 4:30 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:
... the compiler accepts it. Whether that's because it's acceptably
pure, or because the compiler just doesn't detect this case of impurity, is
another matter. The int k is certainly mutable from outside the
Artur Skawina wrote:
On 04/15/12 03:01, Piotr Szturmaj wrote:
Artur Skawina wrote:
@property is for functions masquerading as data, i'm not sure extending it
to pointers and delegates would be a good idea. What you are asking for is
basically syntax sugar for:
struct CommonInputRange(E)
Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Saturday, April 14, 2012 20:47:20 Piotr Szturmaj wrote:
struct CommonInputRange(E)
{
@property bool delegate() empty;
@property E delegate() front;
void delegate() popFront;
}
front returns an element in the range. In your case, it's returning a
On Sat, 2012-04-14 at 23:25 +0200, Artur Skawina wrote:
[...]
'threads' is a (lazy) range;
auto threads = array(map ! ( ( int a ) {
void delegate ( ) f ( ) {
return delegate ( ) { writeln ( a ) ; } ;
}
return new
On Sat, 2012-04-14 at 17:10 -0400, Matt Soucy wrote:
[...]
If you merge the two foreach loops into one, doing t.start();t.join();
it doesn't have this issue. Also, when I run your code repeatedly the
number of successful numbers printed changes a lot.
I'm assuming that you're trying to join
On Sat, 2012-04-14 at 23:27 +0200, Somedude wrote:
[...]
This works:
int main ( immutable string[] args ) {
auto threadgroup = new ThreadGroup();
void delegate ( ) f (int a ) {
return delegate ( ) { writeln ( a ) ; } ;
}
for ( int n = 0; n 10; n++ ) {
On 04/15/12 15:55, Russel Winder wrote:
On Sat, 2012-04-14 at 23:25 +0200, Artur Skawina wrote:
[...]
'threads' is a (lazy) range;
auto threads = array(map ! ( ( int a ) {
void delegate ( ) f ( ) {
return delegate ( ) { writeln ( a ) ; } ;
class Foo
{
Foo f;
Foo bar () const
{
return f;
}
}
The above code results in the compile error:
Error: cannot implicitly convert expression (this.f) of type const(Foo)
to test.Foo
But if I change bar to:
Object bar () const
{
return f;
}
I don't get any
On 04/15/2012 03:03 AM, Luis Panadero Guardeño wrote:
Auto response :
the main thread ends, and It signal func to end, so It never receive
any message from clock. I fix it, doing that main sleep 1000 seconds
after sending func Tid to clock
This too should work at the end of main():
On Sunday, 15 April 2012 at 11:23:37 UTC, John Chapman wrote:
On Sunday, 15 April 2012 at 11:16:43 UTC, Xan wrote:
int main(string [] args)
{
auto alg = Algorisme!(int,int);
Should be:
auto alg = new Algorisme!(int, int);
alg.nom = Doblar;
alg.versio = 1;
alg.funcio =
On Sun, 2012-04-15 at 16:04 +0200, Artur Skawina wrote:
[...]
(my old GDC needs the explicit function, no idea if newer
frontends still require that)
OK, works for me with GDC as well, DMD is broken! I'll file a bug
report.
--
Russel.
this( const size_t step) const
{
this.step = step;
}
Error: cannot modify const/immutable/inout expression this.step
Is this the expected behavior? Thanks.
On 04/15/2012 11:39 AM, Xan wrote:
On Sunday, 15 April 2012 at 11:23:37 UTC, John Chapman wrote:
On Sunday, 15 April 2012 at 11:16:43 UTC, Xan wrote:
int main(string [] args)
{
auto alg = Algorisme!(int,int);
Should be:
auto alg = new Algorisme!(int, int);
alg.nom = Doblar;
alg.versio
Am 15.04.2012, 21:20 Uhr, schrieb sclytrack sclytr...@hotmail.com:
this( const size_t step) const
{
this.step = step;
}
Error: cannot modify const/immutable/inout expression this.step
Is this the expected behavior? Thanks.
Yep.
- Return 0 from main() for successful exit, anything else by
convention means some sort of error.
Why not just declare main return type to be void?
On 15/04/2012 21:07, Trass3r wrote:
Am 15.04.2012, 21:20 Uhr, schrieb sclytrack sclytr...@hotmail.com:
this( const size_t step) const
{
this.step = step;
}
Error: cannot modify const/immutable/inout expression this.step
Is this the expected behavior? Thanks.
Yep.
No it's not:
import
On Saturday, 14 April 2012 at 10:48:16 UTC, Luis Panadero
Guardeño wrote:
What is the status of shared types ?
I try it with gdmd v4.6.3
And I not get any warring/error when I do anything over a
shared variable
without using atomicOp. It's normal ?
shared ushort ram[ram_size];
Le 15/04/2012 09:23, ReneSac a écrit :
On Sunday, 15 April 2012 at 02:56:21 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On Saturday, 14 April 2012 at 19:51:21 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
wrote:
GDC has all the regular gcc optimization flags available IIRC. The
I notice the 2D array is declared
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Somedude lovelyd...@mailmetrash.com wrote:
Le 15/04/2012 09:23, ReneSac a écrit :
On Sunday, 15 April 2012 at 02:56:21 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On Saturday, 14 April 2012 at 19:51:21 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
wrote:
GDC has all the regular gcc
Le 15/04/2012 20:40, Russel Winder a écrit :
On Sun, 2012-04-15 at 16:04 +0200, Artur Skawina wrote:
[...]
(my old GDC needs the explicit function, no idea if newer
frontends still require that)
OK, works for me with GDC as well, DMD is broken! I'll file a bug
report.
It works here (DMD
Le 15/04/2012 23:33, Ashish Myles a écrit :
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Somedude lovelyd...@mailmetrash.com wrote:
Le 15/04/2012 09:23, ReneSac a écrit :
On Sunday, 15 April 2012 at 02:56:21 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On Saturday, 14 April 2012 at 19:51:21 UTC, Joseph Rushton
Le 15/04/2012 23:41, Somedude a écrit :
Le 15/04/2012 23:33, Ashish Myles a écrit :
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Somedude lovelyd...@mailmetrash.com wrote:
Oh right, sorry for this. It's a bit confusing.
Now apart from comparing the generated asm, I don't see.
On 04/15/2012 02:23 PM, Kevin Cox wrote:
On Apr 15, 2012 4:30 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net mailto:joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:
... the compiler accepts it. Whether that's because it's acceptably
pure, or because the compiler just doesn't detect this case of
On Sunday, April 15, 2012 17:57:27 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
class Foo
{
Foo f;
Foo bar () const
{
return f;
}
}
The above code results in the compile error:
Error: cannot implicitly convert expression (this.f) of type const(Foo)
to test.Foo
But if I
On Sunday, April 15, 2012 21:20:23 sclytrack wrote:
this( const size_t step) const
{
this.step = step;
}
Error: cannot modify const/immutable/inout expression this.step
Is this the expected behavior? Thanks.
const and immutable postblit constructors
I'm trying to figure out how to achieve folder deletion times
close to the times achieved with the parallel rmd after myDefrag
sortByName on a folder. It takes less than 3.5 secs for a 2G
layout that has been sorted, and with the rmd configured so that
it also works on a sorted list. This is a
Forums are messing up, so I'll try and respond in sections.
/test
Actually, all of this discussion has made me think that having a
compiler flag to change FP values to zero as default would be a
good idea.
Basically my opinion is largely influenced by a couple things.
That is:
- I believe a lot of good programmers are used to using zero for
default.
F i L:
I should be able to tackle something like adding a compiler
flag to default FP variables to zero. If I write the code,
would anyone object to having a flag for this?
I strongly doubt Walter Andrei will accept this in the main DMD
trunk.
Bye,
bearophile
On Monday, 16 April 2012 at 03:25:15 UTC, bearophile wrote:
F i L:
I should be able to tackle something like adding a compiler
flag to default FP variables to zero. If I write the code,
would anyone object to having a flag for this?
I strongly doubt Walter Andrei will accept this in the
On 4/16/12 12:00 PM, F i L wrote:
On Monday, 16 April 2012 at 03:25:15 UTC, bearophile wrote:
F i L:
I should be able to tackle something like adding a compiler flag to
default FP variables to zero. If I write the code, would anyone
object to having a flag for this?
I strongly doubt Walter
On Monday, 16 April 2012 at 04:05:35 UTC, Ary Manzana wrote:
On 4/16/12 12:00 PM, F i L wrote:
On Monday, 16 April 2012 at 03:25:15 UTC, bearophile wrote:
F i L:
I should be able to tackle something like adding a compiler
flag to
default FP variables to zero. If I write the code, would
40 matches
Mail list logo
