On 2012-05-25 08:15, #coder wrote:
Hi,
I am using the Mono-D for building a project with 3-4 library projects
and one console project. Although I am using the Mono-D but I think this
issue is not unique to Mono-D. Please advise me with a solution, if I am
missing something obvious here.
Issue;
On 2012-05-24 21:49, Sean Kelly wrote:
There's a difference in how unittest execution is handled. This could probably
be sorted out though.
Yeah, I've noticed that. Does the unit test really need to run when you
call rt_init from C?
--
/Jacob Carlborg
Hi,
I am using the Mono-D for building a project with 3-4 library
projects and one console project. Although I am using the Mono-D
but I think this issue is not unique to Mono-D. Please advise me
with a solution, if I am missing something obvious here.
Issue;
I have two "library" project wi
Maybe a compile-time error is better here.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8146
On May 24, 2012, at 1:27 PM, "Steven Schveighoffer" wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2012 15:44:28 -0400, Sean Kelly wrote:
>
>> On May 22, 2012, at 2:01 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:16:30 -0400, Denis Shelomovskij
>>> wrote:
>>>
21.05.2012 2:13, Alex Rønne Pete
On Thu, 24 May 2012 15:44:28 -0400, Sean Kelly
wrote:
On May 22, 2012, at 2:01 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:16:30 -0400, Denis Shelomovskij
wrote:
21.05.2012 2:13, Alex Rønne Petersen написал:
On 20-05-2012 22:13, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-05-20 18:25, A
On May 23, 2012, at 12:46 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2012-05-23 19:32, Denis Shelomovskij wrote:
>
>> What call have you found in "_d_criticalenter"?
>>
>> By the way, `_STI_critical_init` is called before C main (uncomment
>> printf's and check), so it is definitely called not by druntime.
On May 19, 2012, at 2:13 PM, japplegame wrote:
>> You don't need to mark Tids as shared.
> Okay. I'm writting logger. Logger is global object and it is
> running in its own separate thread (for example, writting logs to
> remote database).
> My application has several threads and all of them want
On May 22, 2012, at 2:01 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:16:30 -0400, Denis Shelomovskij
> wrote:
>
>> 21.05.2012 2:13, Alex Rønne Petersen написал:
>>> On 20-05-2012 22:13, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-05-20 18:25, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> Seems lik
On Wednesday, 23 May 2012 at 21:02:27 UTC, Paul wrote:
I wonder about the speed between this method and Era's
home-spun solution?
My solution may have a flaw in it's lookup table; namely if I
got one of the codes wrong. I used regex and a site to reference
them all so I Hope it's right. I ca
On May 23, 2012, at 7:49 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2012-05-23 13:31, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 May 2012 02:21:14 -0400, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>>
>>> On 2012-05-22 23:01, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>>
It looks like code that is not called on Windows. Which doesn't mak
On 05/24/2012 10:25 AM, StefanvT wrote:
Hey thank you!! :-)
I already tried to use offsetof on my own. But I always try to
cast to a pointer.
And this fails horribly :o)
So thank you. I think I need to have a deeper look at references
and pointer in D!
I should have mentioned that pointers
Hey thank you!! :-)
I already tried to use offsetof on my own. But I always try to
cast to a pointer.
And this fails horribly :o)
So thank you. I think I need to have a deeper look at references
and pointer in D!
Justin Whear:
Perhaps it should be ambiguous due to the special nature of
null,
Maybe a compile-time error is better here.
Bye,
bearophile
On 05/24/2012 05:29 AM, StefanvT wrote:
> I have such a function in C++:
>
> template
> inline CB* get_class_from_field( FIELD CB::*field, FIELD* mp) {
> return reinterpret_cast(
> reinterpret_cast(mp) -
> reinterpret_cast(&(reinterpret_cast(0)->*field)));
> }
I think get_object_from_field() w
On Thu, 24 May 2012 14:50:38 +0200, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> I'm not sure if this is a bug or not:
>
> struct Foo { }
>
> void test(void* test) { assert(0); }
> void test(Foo* test) { }
>
> void main()
> {
> test(null);
> }
>
> The call matches the second overload: "void test(Foo* test)".
I'm not sure if this is a bug or not:
struct Foo { }
void test(void* test) { assert(0); }
void test(Foo* test) { }
void main()
{
test(null);
}
The call matches the second overload: "void test(Foo* test)". But
shouldn't this be an ambiguous call?
Hi,
I'm totally new to D. But it looks very interesting :-)
I normally develop in C++.
I have such a function in C++:
template
inline CB* get_class_from_field( FIELD CB::*field, FIELD* mp) {
return reinterpret_cast(
reinterpret_cast(mp) -
reinterpret_cast(&(reinterpr
On 23/05/12 11:41, bearophile wrote:
Simen Kjaeraas:
Should this be filed as a bug, or is the plan that only pure functions be
ctfe-able? (or has someone already filed it, perhaps)
It's already in Bugzilla, see issue 7994 and 6169.
It's just happening because the purity checking is currentl
Thank you very much. I wrote the real paths into the dmd.conf and
there was really a copy of dmd.conf in the usr/local/bin. I
deleted everything there, except the dmd, dumpobj and the obj2asm
and now its working.
20 matches
Mail list logo
