stdarg x86_64 problems...

2012-07-12 Thread John Colvin
When I compile the following code with -m32 and -m64 i get a totally different result, the documentation suggests that they should be the same... import core.stdc.stdarg, std.stdio; void main() { foo(0,5,4,3); } void foo(int dummy, ...) { va_list ap; f

Re: stdarg x86_64 problems...

2012-07-12 Thread Jonathan M Davis
On Thursday, July 12, 2012 11:12:08 John Colvin wrote: > When I compile the following code with -m32 and -m64 i get a > totally different result, the documentation suggests that they > should be the same... > > import core.stdc.stdarg, std.stdio; > > void main() { > foo(0,5,4,3); > } > > v

Re: readonly?

2012-07-12 Thread Artur Skawina
On 07/12/12 01:09, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 10:56:23 Artur Skawina wrote: >> Can anybody think of a reason to keep the current (broken) behavior? > > Easily. You misunderstand the "current (broken) behavior" part - it is about what 'C*' is, it is not at all about clas

Re: stdarg x86_64 problems...

2012-07-12 Thread Don Clugston
On 12/07/12 11:12, John Colvin wrote: When I compile the following code with -m32 and -m64 i get a totally different result, the documentation suggests that they should be the same... import core.stdc.stdarg, std.stdio; void main() { foo(0,5,4,3); } void foo(int dummy, ...) { va_list

Re: immutability and constness

2012-07-12 Thread Minas
Thanks a lot! So what is the problem with (logical)const? Is it needed that much? And why some methods (toString(), toHash()) HAVE to be const? I mean, what's the problem if they aren't?

Re: immutability and constness

2012-07-12 Thread Ali Çehreli
On 07/12/2012 07:13 AM, Minas wrote: Thanks a lot! So what is the problem with (logical)const? Is it needed that much? And why some methods (toString(), toHash()) HAVE to be const? I mean, what's the problem if they aren't? Here is the problem: class C {} // Good foo: Takes as const(C) becaus

Re: deimos libX11 undefined reference

2012-07-12 Thread mta`chrono
Am 12.07.2012 08:17, schrieb Jacob Carlborg: > On 2012-07-12 01:50, cal wrote: > >> Hmm, looking at the .c header, the function is not even defined. I think >> it is not used, and in this case turning macros into functions in the >> binding generates linker errors. I don't know the best way to fix

Re: deimos libX11 undefined reference

2012-07-12 Thread David Nadlinger
On Thursday, 12 July 2012 at 16:43:28 UTC, mta`chrono wrote: when marcos are turned into functions they introduce new symbols. it's a pity, but in that case you have to link to deimos. so deimos will become a wrapper rather than a binding. The binding author can also opt to just translate the

Re: deimos libX11 undefined reference

2012-07-12 Thread cal
On Thursday, 12 July 2012 at 16:43:28 UTC, mta`chrono wrote: Am 12.07.2012 08:17, schrieb Jacob Carlborg: On 2012-07-12 01:50, cal wrote: Hmm, looking at the .c header, the function is not even defined. I think it is not used, and in this case turning macros into functions in the binding gene

Re: immutability and constness

2012-07-12 Thread Minas Mina
On Thursday, 12 July 2012 at 14:42:17 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote: On 07/12/2012 07:13 AM, Minas wrote: Thanks a lot! So what is the problem with (logical)const? Is it needed that much? And why some methods (toString(), toHash()) HAVE to be const? I mean, what's the problem if they aren't? Here is