On 5 May 2011 08:25, Jonathan M Davis <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 5/4/2011 9:17 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: >> > The one thing that I'm aware of that was a problem thanks to Don's CTFE >> > changes which I don't know whether it was fixed or not was QtD. IIRC, Max >> > was saying that it was seriously broken earlier. There's a good chance >> > that it's fine now, but I think that we should make sure that QtD is no >> > longer failing to build due to the CTFE changes. >> >> I folded in patches to dmd requested by Qt. If there are other issues with >> Qt, are they in bugzilla? > > No, I don't believe so. I just recall that when the recent CTFE changes came > up in one of the threads in the main newsgroup, and I mentioned that they were > still broken, because my recent changes to std.datetime weren't compiling, Max > said that they were causing a lot of failures for QtD as well. I doubt that he > would have created a bug report though, given that Don was in the middle of > his changes. It's quite possible that it compiles fine now though. I just > think that it should be verified that the CTFE changes are now stable enough > that QtD is no longer failing to build because of them as it was before. Much > as Don's changes are definitely something that we want, they risk causing > serious regressions if we're not careful.
I added a lot more very harsh sanity checks to the CTFE engine, so there's very little risk of wrong-code regressions. If there are any regressions, they will probably be an ICE, on something which previously worked by pure luck. I think we should roll out a beta, as soon as Phobos unittests pass. _______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
