Re: dmd 1.060 and 2.045 release
Walter Bright, el 4 de mayo a las 10:52 me escribiste: Robert Clipsham wrote: Still a long way to go though, various (much!) smaller issues that need fixing... If no one else gets to them I'll go on a debug fixing spree at some point in a couple of months and see if we can't get bug #4044 (debugging tracker) closed :) I agree that getting all the gdb issues sorted out will be a nice win. Specially now that GDB will support D natively! -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ -- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) -- Los sueños de los niños son especialmente importantes en su etapa de formación; si un niño no sueña es que será un pelotudo toda la vida. -- Ricardo Vaporeso
Re: dmd 1.060 and 2.045 release
On 04/05/10 20:43, Walter Bright wrote: Yes, do it! http://dwarfstd.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=100504.1 Please feel free to comment on it/make corrections :)
Re: dmd 1.060 and 2.045 release
On 05/05/10 20:36, Robert Clipsham wrote: On 04/05/10 20:43, Walter Bright wrote: Yes, do it! http://dwarfstd.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=100504.1 Please feel free to comment on it/make corrections :) This has been assigned issue #100504.1. We are not accepting extension proposals for DWARF Version 4, but will consider this for the next version. Looks like we'll have to wait a while for its inclusion. In the mean time could I suggest we move the DW_TAG's of dmd's extensions to the area of the spec specified for language specific extensions? I'm not sure if this was specified in DWARF 2 which dmd uses, or what the range is (I don't have the spec to hand), but it would be good not to conflict with DWARF 4. Another good idea could be to decide how else DWARF could be extended to help with debug info so we have more chance of getting some useful things for debugging into DWARF 5.
Re: Can we all please stop overreacting?
On 05/03/2010 11:51 PM, Gurney Halleck wrote: == Quote from Sean Kelly (s...@invisibleduck.org)'s article Donnos...@nospam.com wrote: Nick Sabalausky wrote: another lurkerlur...@lurk.urk wrote in message news:hrfcfi$1ea...@digitalmars.com... == Quote from Don (nos...@nospam.com)'s article FeepingCreature wrote: ... I appreciate your decision to leave that wasp nest and join Phobos. -- Gurney Halleck It doesn't really help to disparage the other people. I know that lots of strong emotions have been raised here, but use them to support the cause you favor, not to tear down the other side. It yields a much healthier community.
Re: dmd 1.060 and 2.045 release
Robert Clipsham wrote: On 05/05/10 20:36, Robert Clipsham wrote: On 04/05/10 20:43, Walter Bright wrote: Yes, do it! http://dwarfstd.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=100504.1 Please feel free to comment on it/make corrections :) This has been assigned issue #100504.1. We are not accepting extension proposals for DWARF Version 4, but will consider this for the next version. Looks like we'll have to wait a while for its inclusion. In the mean time could I suggest we move the DW_TAG's of dmd's extensions to the area of the spec specified for language specific extensions? I'm not sure if this was specified in DWARF 2 which dmd uses, or what the range is (I don't have the spec to hand), but it would be good not to conflict with DWARF 4. Good idea. Another good idea could be to decide how else DWARF could be extended to help with debug info so we have more chance of getting some useful things for debugging into DWARF 5.
Re: dmd 1.060 and 2.045 release
Alex Makhotin wrote: It takes ~40 seconds 50% load on the dual core processor(CentOS 5.3 kernel 2.6.32.4), to get the actual error messages about the undefined identifier. Definitely there's a problem.
Re: dmd 1.060 and 2.045 release
Walter Bright wrote: Alex Makhotin wrote: It takes ~40 seconds 50% load on the dual core processor(CentOS 5.3 kernel 2.6.32.4), to get the actual error messages about the undefined identifier. Definitely there's a problem. The problem is the spell checker is O(n*n) on the number of characters in the undefined identifier.
Re: dmd 1.060 and 2.045 release
Alex Makhotin wrote: Walter Bright wrote: Walter Bright wrote: Alex Makhotin wrote: It takes ~40 seconds 50% load on the dual core processor(CentOS 5.3 kernel 2.6.32.4), to get the actual error messages about the undefined identifier. Definitely there's a problem. The problem is the spell checker is O(n*n) on the number of characters in the undefined identifier. Is there a way to disable it? Currently, no.
