Re: bugzilla 424 - Unexpected OPTLINK Termination - solved!

2009-11-27 Thread bearophile
Walter Bright: What would be cool, though, is a linker that is able to do more advanced things - This may be useful as guide (not used by LDC yet): http://llvm.org/docs/GoldPlugin.html Bye, bearophile

Re: Should pure nothrow --- @pure @nothrow ?

2009-11-27 Thread Lars T. Kyllingstad
Don wrote: It seems that pure and nothrow are attributes, just like @safe. (By contrast, you can overload functions based on const and immutable). Should the names be changed? Definitely. And what about @deprecated and @override? -Lars

Re: Should pure nothrow --- @pure @nothrow ?

2009-11-27 Thread #ponce
Definitely. And what about @deprecated and @override? As override is now required, i don't think it should be an attribute.

Re: Should pure nothrow --- @pure @nothrow ?

2009-11-27 Thread Don
#ponce wrote: Definitely. And what about @deprecated and @override? As override is now required, i don't think it should be an attribute. As I understand it, one of the characteristics of attributes is that you should be able to remove them from the entire program, without affecting the

Re: Should pure nothrow --- @pure @nothrow ?

2009-11-27 Thread Denis Koroskin
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:09:05 +0300, Don nos...@nospam.com wrote: #ponce wrote: Definitely. And what about @deprecated and @override? As override is now required, i don't think it should be an attribute. As I understand it, one of the characteristics of attributes is that you should be

Re: Pure, Nothrow in Generic Programming

2009-11-27 Thread Walter Bright
dsimcha wrote: I would say that @safe doesn't make much sense. What if you're implementing your comparison function using memcmp() or something else that involves a bunch of pointers? If you pass memcmp() invalid parameters, it can segfault, and would therefore have to be marked as unsafe,

Re: Should pure nothrow --- @pure @nothrow ?

2009-11-27 Thread Denis Koroskin
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:30:30 +0300, Lars T. Kyllingstad pub...@kyllingen.nospamnet wrote: Denis Koroskin wrote: On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:09:05 +0300, Don nos...@nospam.com wrote: #ponce wrote: Definitely. And what about @deprecated and @override? As override is now required, i don't think

Re: Should pure nothrow --- @pure @nothrow ?

2009-11-27 Thread bearophile
Walter Bright: Naked is not an externally visible attribute of a function, signature or type, it only concerns the internals. Therefore, it shouldn't be an attribute. On the other hand I agree with them that currently naked is not in the best place. So let's try another alternative: void

Wibble, Wibble

2009-11-27 Thread AJ
Nurse, Nurse - take this cork off the end of my fork - I'm trying to eat.

Re: Should pure nothrow --- @pure @nothrow ?

2009-11-27 Thread Denis Koroskin
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:50:19 +0300, bearophile bearophileh...@lycos.com wrote: Walter Bright: Naked is not an externally visible attribute of a function, signature or type, it only concerns the internals. Therefore, it shouldn't be an attribute. On the other hand I agree with them that

Re: Ongoing problems with shared and immutable

2009-11-27 Thread bearophile
Graham St Jack: I have been dabbling with the shared and immutable keywords in an effort to find out if they are usable, and aren't getting anywhere. Thank you for reminding me that tuning D for performance is premature optimization :-) Bye, bearophile

Re: Should pure nothrow --- @pure @nothrow ?

2009-11-27 Thread Lars T. Kyllingstad
Don wrote: #ponce wrote: Definitely. And what about @deprecated and @override? As override is now required, i don't think it should be an attribute. As I understand it, one of the characteristics of attributes is that you should be able to remove them from the entire program, without

Re: Should pure nothrow --- @pure @nothrow ?

2009-11-27 Thread Denis Koroskin
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:58:59 +0300, Don nos...@nospam.com wrote: Denis Koroskin wrote: On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:50:19 +0300, bearophile bearophileh...@lycos.com wrote: Walter Bright: Naked is not an externally visible attribute of a function, signature or type, it only concerns the

Humble revamp of @trust, @safe and @unsafe

2009-11-27 Thread #ponce
I think that in the current design of safety, @trusted function and normal functions are quite similar. An @unsafe proposal has been rejected because of complexity. But here is a case that is left. Sometimes in D1, I found that a function I tought trustworthy is in fact completely buggy. I

Re: Should pure nothrow --- @pure @nothrow ?

2009-11-27 Thread Denis Koroskin
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:56:10 +0300, Lars T. Kyllingstad pub...@kyllingen.nospamnet wrote: Don wrote: #ponce wrote: Definitely. And what about @deprecated and @override? As override is now required, i don't think it should be an attribute. As I understand it, one of the characteristics of

Re: Should pure nothrow --- @pure @nothrow ?

2009-11-27 Thread bearophile
Denis Koroskin: I think do not affect the generated code is a bit restricting. [...] There are endless possibilities. Lombok gives annotations to reduce boring lines of Java code: http://projectlombok.org/features/index.html Some of those annotations: @Getter / @Setter: Never write public int

Re: Should pure nothrow --- @pure @nothrow ?

2009-11-27 Thread Don
Denis Koroskin wrote: On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:58:59 +0300, Don nos...@nospam.com wrote: Denis Koroskin wrote: On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:50:19 +0300, bearophile bearophileh...@lycos.com wrote: Walter Bright: Naked is not an externally visible attribute of a function, signature or type, it

Re: Humble revamp of @trust, @safe and @unsafe

2009-11-27 Thread Don
#ponce wrote: I think that in the current design of safety, @trusted function and normal functions are quite similar. An @unsafe proposal has been rejected because of complexity. No it hasn't been rejected. It's implemented in D2.037 (it's called @system now).

Re: Should pure nothrow --- @pure @nothrow ?

2009-11-27 Thread Don
Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote: Don wrote: #ponce wrote: Definitely. And what about @deprecated and @override? As override is now required, i don't think it should be an attribute. As I understand it, one of the characteristics of attributes is that you should be able to remove them from the

Re: Should pure nothrow --- @pure @nothrow ?

2009-11-27 Thread Lars T. Kyllingstad
Don wrote: Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote: Don wrote: #ponce wrote: Definitely. And what about @deprecated and @override? As override is now required, i don't think it should be an attribute. As I understand it, one of the characteristics of attributes is that you should be able to remove

Re: Should pure nothrow --- @pure @nothrow ?

2009-11-27 Thread Danny Wilson
Op Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:58:59 +0100 schreef Don nos...@nospam.com: void foo() @naked body { LOL! Spam filters would love that!! I can already imagine the jokes spreading over the internets: @safe public double penetration(of a) @naked body { ... }

Re: Should pure nothrow --- @pure @nothrow ?

2009-11-27 Thread Leandro Lucarella
Denis Koroskin, el 27 de noviembre a las 12:17 me escribiste: On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:09:05 +0300, Don nos...@nospam.com wrote: #ponce wrote: Definitely. And what about @deprecated and @override? As override is now required, i don't think it should be an attribute. As I understand it, one

Re: Pure, Nothrow in Generic Programming

2009-11-27 Thread dsimcha
== Quote from Walter Bright (newshou...@digitalmars.com)'s article dsimcha wrote: I would say that @safe doesn't make much sense. What if you're implementing your comparison function using memcmp() or something else that involves a bunch of pointers? If you pass memcmp() invalid

Re: Should pure nothrow --- @pure @nothrow ?

2009-11-27 Thread Ary Borenszweig
Don wrote: #ponce wrote: Definitely. And what about @deprecated and @override? As override is now required, i don't think it should be an attribute. As I understand it, one of the characteristics of attributes is that you should be able to remove them from the entire program, without

Re: Pure, Nothrow in Generic Programming

2009-11-27 Thread Don
dsimcha wrote: == Quote from Walter Bright (newshou...@digitalmars.com)'s article dsimcha wrote: I would say that @safe doesn't make much sense. What if you're implementing your comparison function using memcmp() or something else that involves a bunch of pointers? If you pass memcmp()

Re: Pure, Nothrow in Generic Programming

2009-11-27 Thread Walter Bright
dsimcha wrote: I think you misunderstood the argument. memcmp() could be @trusted if functions only need to be safe when passed valid parameters, though I don't necessarily agree that this makes sense. I was thinking memcmp() shouldn't even be marked @trusted because it's so easy to invoke

Re: Pure, Nothrow in Generic Programming

2009-11-27 Thread Walter Bright
Don wrote: It seems to me that one of the most important features of SafeD is that whenever a @safe function invokes a function, it does so only with valid parameters. The problem with memcmp() is that the required relationship between the parameters is complicated, and can't be determined

Re: Pure, Nothrow in Generic Programming

2009-11-27 Thread BCS
Hello Walter, there's no way that an @safe function can guarantee it sends memcmp() arguments that will work safely with memcmp(). I think that's backwards. There's no way memcmp can be sure it's arguments are safe just because it's being called from a @safe function. OTOH, if a @trusted

Re: Pure, Nothrow in Generic Programming

2009-11-27 Thread Andrei Alexandrescu
Walter Bright wrote: dsimcha wrote: I think you misunderstood the argument. memcmp() could be @trusted if functions only need to be safe when passed valid parameters, though I don't necessarily agree that this makes sense. I was thinking memcmp() shouldn't even be marked @trusted because

Re: Should pure nothrow --- @pure @nothrow ?

2009-11-27 Thread Don
Ary Borenszweig wrote: Don wrote: #ponce wrote: Definitely. And what about @deprecated and @override? As override is now required, i don't think it should be an attribute. As I understand it, one of the characteristics of attributes is that you should be able to remove them from the

Re: Pure, Nothrow in Generic Programming

2009-11-27 Thread Don
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Walter Bright wrote: dsimcha wrote: I think you misunderstood the argument. memcmp() could be @trusted if functions only need to be safe when passed valid parameters, though I don't necessarily agree that this makes sense. I was thinking memcmp() shouldn't even

Re: Pure, Nothrow in Generic Programming

2009-11-27 Thread dsimcha
== Quote from Don (nos...@nospam.com)'s article Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Walter Bright wrote: dsimcha wrote: I think you misunderstood the argument. memcmp() could be @trusted if functions only need to be safe when passed valid parameters, though I don't necessarily agree that

Re: Pure, Nothrow in Generic Programming

2009-11-27 Thread Denis Koroskin
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:51:44 +0300, Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote: Walter Bright wrote: dsimcha wrote: I think you misunderstood the argument. memcmp() could be @trusted if functions only need to be safe when passed valid parameters, though I don't necessarily

Re: Pure, Nothrow in Generic Programming

2009-11-27 Thread Denis Koroskin
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:20:47 +0300, dsimcha dsim...@yahoo.com wrote: == Quote from Don (nos...@nospam.com)'s article Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Walter Bright wrote: dsimcha wrote: I think you misunderstood the argument. memcmp() could be @trusted if functions only need to be safe when

Re: Pure, Nothrow in Generic Programming

2009-11-27 Thread bearophile
dsimcha: Isn't overflowing a signed int undefined behavior? Yes, it can be. If so, how would we eliminate undefined behavior without very expensive runtime checks? I have explained LLVM devs how to speed-up some of those runtime checks. Do you exactly know how much expensive they are, in

Re: Pure, Nothrow in Generic Programming

2009-11-27 Thread bearophile
Denis Koroskin: I don't think integer overflow could be considered an undefined behavior. It's pretty much expected that uint.max + 1 == 0. Computers are (mostly) deterministic, so in a certain sense everything they do can be expected :-) But sometimes the programmer forgets or doesn't take

Re: Pure, Nothrow in Generic Programming

2009-11-27 Thread dsimcha
== Quote from Denis Koroskin (2kor...@gmail.com)'s article On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:20:47 +0300, dsimcha dsim...@yahoo.com wrote: == Quote from Don (nos...@nospam.com)'s article Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Walter Bright wrote: dsimcha wrote: I think you misunderstood the argument.

Re: Should pure nothrow --- @pure @nothrow ?

2009-11-27 Thread Chad J
Don wrote: It seems that pure and nothrow are attributes, just like @safe. (By contrast, you can overload functions based on const and immutable). Should the names be changed? This runs into another issue I was thinking about. So I'm working on this property rewrite thing that does the

Reference counting for resource management

2009-11-27 Thread LMB
Hello, I've been reading the forums for some time, but this is my first post here :-) I am trying to create yet another D2 wrapper for SQLite. As usual with many C libraries, SQLite provides us some objects and functions to create and destroy them. So, I decided to encapsulate these SQLite

Re: Reference counting for resource management

2009-11-27 Thread LMB
LMB Wrote: Hello, [...] Ouch! I thought I was posting to the learn group. My bad, sorry!

Re: Reference counting for resource management

2009-11-27 Thread Denis Koroskin
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 01:27:41 +0300, LMB lmbar...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I've been reading the forums for some time, but this is my first post here :-) I am trying to create yet another D2 wrapper for SQLite. As usual with many C libraries, SQLite provides us some objects and functions

Re: Pure, Nothrow in Generic Programming

2009-11-27 Thread Andrei Alexandrescu
Don wrote: Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Walter Bright wrote: dsimcha wrote: I think you misunderstood the argument. memcmp() could be @trusted if functions only need to be safe when passed valid parameters, though I don't necessarily agree that this makes sense. I was thinking memcmp()

Re: Pure, Nothrow in Generic Programming

2009-11-27 Thread Andrei Alexandrescu
Denis Koroskin wrote: On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:51:44 +0300, Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote: Walter Bright wrote: dsimcha wrote: I think you misunderstood the argument. memcmp() could be @trusted if functions only need to be safe when passed valid parameters, though I

Re: Pure, Nothrow in Generic Programming

2009-11-27 Thread Walter Bright
dsimcha wrote: Quick question about the eliminating undefined behavior thing: Isn't overflowing a signed int undefined behavior? No. On every 2's complement machine I've ever heard of, the behavior is defined and the same.

Re: Pure, Nothrow in Generic Programming

2009-11-27 Thread Walter Bright
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: b) incorrect addresses within the application, erroneous result returned I think it would be implementation-defined behavior - in case (b) memcmp would return an implementation-defined value but still defined. How could it?

Re: Pure, Nothrow in Generic Programming

2009-11-27 Thread Walter Bright
dsimcha wrote: What about int.max + 1? I specifically mentioned **signed** integers because, IIRC overflowing these is undefined in C, but overflowing unsigned is defined. It's undefined behavior in C because C supports ones-complement arithmetic. D does not - twos-complement only.

dynamic classes and duck typing

2009-11-27 Thread Walter Bright
One thing Java and Python, Ruby, etc., still hold over D is dynamic classes, i.e. classes that are only known at runtime, not compile time. In D, this: s.foo(3); could be emulated with: s.dynamicMethod(foo, 3); Unfortunately, that makes it impossible to use s with generic code

Should operator overload methods be virtual?

2009-11-27 Thread Walter Bright
Making them not virtual would also make them not overridable, they'd all be implicitly final. Is there any compelling use case for virtual operator overloads? Keep in mind that any non-virtual function can still be a wrapper for another virtual method, so it is still possible (with a bit of

Re: Pure, Nothrow in Generic Programming

2009-11-27 Thread Andrei Alexandrescu
Walter Bright wrote: Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: b) incorrect addresses within the application, erroneous result returned I think it would be implementation-defined behavior - in case (b) memcmp would return an implementation-defined value but still defined. How could it? The value itself

Re: dynamic classes and duck typing

2009-11-27 Thread Andrei Alexandrescu
Walter Bright wrote: One thing Java and Python, Ruby, etc., still hold over D is dynamic classes, i.e. classes that are only known at runtime, not compile time. In D, this: s.foo(3); could be emulated with: s.dynamicMethod(foo, 3); Unfortunately, that makes it impossible to use s

Re: Should operator overload methods be virtual?

2009-11-27 Thread Denis Koroskin
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 02:32:21 +0300, Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote: Making them not virtual would also make them not overridable, they'd all be implicitly final. Is there any compelling use case for virtual operator overloads? Keep in mind that any non-virtual function

Re: dynamic classes and duck typing

2009-11-27 Thread Simen kjaeraas
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:30:14 +0100, Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote: One thing Java and Python, Ruby, etc., still hold over D is dynamic classes, i.e. classes that are only known at runtime, not compile time. In D, this: s.foo(3); could be emulated with:

Re: Pure, Nothrow in Generic Programming

2009-11-27 Thread Walter Bright
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Let's not confuse undefined with implementation-defined. I am firmly convinced that memcmp never falls in the undefined behavior realm. The behavior is always defined. Makes sense. But I'd still want to make it not @safe, by using a more expansive definition of

Re: dynamic classes and duck typing

2009-11-27 Thread Walter Bright
Simen kjaeraas wrote: davidl implemented this as opDotExp in Fully dynamic d by opDotExp overloading (http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?article_id=88145). Thanks for the ref. On one page linkies:

Re: dynamic classes and duck typing

2009-11-27 Thread bearophile
Walter Bright: One thing Java and Python, Ruby, etc., still hold over D is dynamic classes, i.e. classes that are only known at runtime, not compile time. I see, you want a Swiss army knife language :o) Before choosing a design I suggest to look at how both Java and C#4 have done it, few

Re: Pure, Nothrow in Generic Programming

2009-11-27 Thread Andrei Alexandrescu
Walter Bright wrote: Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Let's not confuse undefined with implementation-defined. I am firmly convinced that memcmp never falls in the undefined behavior realm. The behavior is always defined. Makes sense. But I'd still want to make it not @safe, by using a more

Re: dynamic classes and duck typing

2009-11-27 Thread Walter Bright
Walter Bright wrote: Simen kjaeraas wrote: davidl implemented this as opDotExp in Fully dynamic d by opDotExp overloading (http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?article_id=88145). Thanks for the ref. On one page linkies:

Re: dynamic classes and duck typing

2009-11-27 Thread Walter Bright
Walter Bright wrote: And clearly, this idea was proposed before, including the templated version. I also see (reading it) that it was pretty thoroughly discussed. I'm convinced we should do it.

Re: Should operator overload methods be virtual?

2009-11-27 Thread dsimcha
== Quote from Walter Bright (newshou...@digitalmars.com)'s article Making them not virtual would also make them not overridable, they'd all be implicitly final. Is there any compelling use case for virtual operator overloads? Keep in mind that any non-virtual function can still be a wrapper

Re: dynamic classes and duck typing

2009-11-27 Thread Walter Bright
bearophile wrote: I see, you want a Swiss army knife language :o) Before choosing a design I suggest to look at how both Java and C#4 have done it, few random links about C#4: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd264736%28VS.100%29.aspx

Re: Pure, Nothrow in Generic Programming

2009-11-27 Thread Rainer Deyke
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Denis Koroskin wrote: Points 2 and 3 introduce undefined behavior, which is not allowed in SafeD :p s/undefined/implementation-defined/ Behavior is only implementation-defined if the implementation actually defines it. When targeting a specific implementation of

Re: Short list with things to finish for D2

2009-11-27 Thread Stewart Gordon
Denis Koroskin wrote: snip Lower bound is always 0 in D, unlike VB where is can take an arbitrary value. As such, there is no need for opLowerBound in D. Only for built-in linear arrays. Half the point is: What if somebody creates a type for which the lower bound is something different?

Re: Should operator overload methods be virtual?

2009-11-27 Thread retard
Fri, 27 Nov 2009 15:32:21 -0800, Walter Bright wrote: Making them not virtual would also make them not overridable, they'd all be implicitly final. Is there any compelling use case for virtual operator overloads? Keep in mind that any non-virtual function can still be a wrapper for another

Re: dynamic classes and duck typing

2009-11-27 Thread dsimcha
== Quote from Walter Bright (newshou...@digitalmars.com)'s article bearophile wrote: I see, you want a Swiss army knife language :o) Before choosing a design I suggest to look at how both Java and C#4 have done it, few random links about C#4:

Re: Should operator overload methods be virtual?

2009-11-27 Thread dsimcha
== Quote from retard (r...@tard.com.invalid)'s article Fri, 27 Nov 2009 15:32:21 -0800, Walter Bright wrote: Making them not virtual would also make them not overridable, they'd all be implicitly final. Is there any compelling use case for virtual operator overloads? Keep in mind that

Re: dynamic classes and duck typing

2009-11-27 Thread Walter Bright
dsimcha wrote: Sometimes I feel like there should be a law similar to Greenspun's Law for language design: Any sufficiently long-lived language that promises to be simpler than C++ and D will grow to contain an ad-hoc, bug-ridden, informally specified, slow implementation of half of C++ and D.

Re: dynamic classes and duck typing

2009-11-27 Thread dsimcha
== Quote from Walter Bright (newshou...@digitalmars.com)'s article dsimcha wrote: Sometimes I feel like there should be a law similar to Greenspun's Law for language design: Any sufficiently long-lived language that promises to be simpler than C++ and D will grow to contain an

Re: Pure, Nothrow in Generic Programming

2009-11-27 Thread torhu
I have a feeling that the safeD thing is a bit premature. I'm only posting this because then I can link to this post next summer, when it's becoming clear that I was right. Because I'm such a nice guy I won't even save this link. :P Noone's ever tried this feature in real code that people

Re: dynamic classes and duck typing

2009-11-27 Thread Walter Bright
dsimcha wrote: Right, but sometimes (though certainly not always) it's better to provide a meta-feature that solves a whole bunch of problems (like better templates) and then solve the individual problems at the library level, rather than add a language feature specifically to address each need.

Re: Should operator overload methods be virtual?

2009-11-27 Thread Robert Jacques
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 22:58:00 -0500, retard r...@tard.com.invalid wrote: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 15:32:21 -0800, Walter Bright wrote: Making them not virtual would also make them not overridable, they'd all be implicitly final. Is there any compelling use case for virtual operator overloads? Keep in

Re: dynamic classes and duck typing

2009-11-27 Thread Chris Nicholson-Sauls
Walter Bright wrote: One thing Java and Python, Ruby, etc., still hold over D is dynamic classes, i.e. classes that are only known at runtime, not compile time. In D, this: s.foo(3); could be emulated with: s.dynamicMethod(foo, 3); Unfortunately, that makes it impossible to use s

Potential memory leak?

2009-11-27 Thread Qian Xu
Hi All, I am using QtD to do some gui stuff. As the QtD documentation described, Qt- data types should be declared with keyword scope, so that all variables can be deallocated in a right order. I found a memory leak problem accidentally, when I executed the following code very frequently: //

Re: reading files from a directory

2009-11-27 Thread Sam Hu
miriac Wrote: I really do want to stick to tongo, i instaled it with the instructions in the tongo book but i can try downlding it again and see if it works thanks Below link contains information on how to setup Tango workspace: http://www.dsource.org/projects/tango/forums/topic/827 Hope

Reference counting for resource management

2009-11-27 Thread LMB
Hello, This should be my first post here, but I just posted the same message on the standard D newsgroup by mistake (what a noob! :-P) So, here I go again, on the right forum this time... I am trying to create yet another D2 wrapper for SQLite. As usual with many C libraries, SQLite provides

Re: String Mixins Compile Time Evaluation

2009-11-27 Thread Kuba Ober
Don wrote: Bill Baxter wrote: On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 4:17 AM, Don nos...@nospam.com wrote: Bill Baxter wrote: On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 2:07 AM, Don nos...@nospam.com wrote: Travis Boucher wrote: I've been playing with string mixins, and they are very powerful. One thing I can't figure out

Access to fixed memory locations, head const, ...

2009-11-27 Thread Kuba Ober
Hi, I'm contemplating using D for an embedded project where system configuration registers have fixed memory locations. One way of doing it would be to have a constant pointer to a structure with manually aligned members that match the register map, and access them like that. This becomes

[Issue 3553] ICE when a function argument defaults to __LINE__

2009-11-27 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3553 Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #2 from

[Issue 3521] Optimized code access popped register

2009-11-27 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3521 --- Comment #2 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2009-11-27 00:15:10 PST --- I investigated this a bit, so far without success. I'm writing notes here for when I come back to it. It's something to do with the register allocation. The compiler is

[Issue 3553] ICE when a function argument defaults to __LINE__

2009-11-27 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3553 Brad Roberts bra...@puremagic.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bra...@puremagic.com

[Issue 3554] New: Ddoc generats invalid output for documentation comments with non paired paranthasis

2009-11-27 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3554 Summary: Ddoc generats invalid output for documentation comments with non paired paranthasis Product: D Version: 2.032 Platform: Other OS/Version: Linux Status: