On 9/4/2016 2:17 AM, John Colvin wrote:
On Sunday, 4 September 2016 at 05:13:49 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 9/3/2016 7:35 PM, John Colvin wrote:
In my experience getting a clue as to what is was the compiler didn't like is
very useful. Often the only way I can find a workaround is by locating the
assert in the compiler source and working out what it might possibly be to do
with, then making informed guesses about what semi-equivalent code I can write
that will avoid the bug.
If the assert just had a little more info, it might save me a fair amount of
time.
If you're willing to look at the file/line of where the assert tripped, I
don't see how a message would save any time at all.
Because the message would give me a clue immediately, without me having to go
looking in the compiler source (!). Also, I have a vague clue of how dmd works,
because I'm interested,
I don't know why opening a file and navigating to a line would consume a fair
amount of time.
> but someone else in my position with a compiler crash in
> front of them and a deadline to hit isn't going to want to have to understand
it
> to find out "oh it's the variadic args marked scope that the compiler is
messing
> up on".
I don't think that's realistic. It'd be like me trying to guess why I got a
kernel panic.
As I mentioned before, assert failures are usually the result of the last edit
one did. The problem is already narrowed down.
