On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Don Clugston <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 5 May 2011 20:14, Max Samukha <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 9:25 AM, 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. > > > > > > There is a confusion somewhere. I have been distracted from QtD recently > and > > have not followed the NG either. Unless I sleepwalk, I couldn't try Don's > > CTFE changes. > > > >> > >> 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 have just tried to build the public branch of QtD with a recent dmd > > ( > https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/3fcc2344681ab9d31d1897188f36051c9beb247f > ) > > on linux. The build has completed without errors. > > > > http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3516 remains critical. > > 3516 is fixed AFAIK. Do you have a test case that still fails? > I don't know. My development branch is in the middle of a big change. It will take some time to complete the change. Then I will remove workarounds for 3516 in the unittests and see whether they all pass. > _______________________________________________ > phobos mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos >
_______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
