Re: LDC 1.1.0-beta3 has been released!
On Wednesday, 12 October 2016 at 09:31:20 UTC, Chris wrote: I had this problem with `beta3` when compiling a vibe.d project. [...] I went back to `beta2` and it worked. GitHub issues are much preferred over forum posts. For this particular one (breaking dub when outputting static libraries), we already have one: https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/issues/1819
Re: LDC 1.1.0-beta3 has been released!
On Wednesday, 12 October 2016 at 08:28:59 UTC, Manu wrote: How's the MS progress on PDB in LLVM? Pretty good. See https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/issues/1716#issuecomment-252727032, there's a VS screenshot of the current state on Win64 with LLVM 3.9.
Re: LDC 1.1.0-beta3 has been released!
On Tuesday, 11 October 2016 at 07:29:00 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote: Am 09.10.2016 um 14:32 schrieb Kai Nacke: Hi everyone, LDC 1.1.0-beta3, the LLVM-based D compiler, is available for download! This BETA release is based on the 2.071.2 frontend and standard library and supports LLVM 3.5-3.9. We provide binaries for Linux, OX X, FreeBSD, Win32 & Win64, Linux/ARM (armv7hf), now bundled with DUB. :-) As usual, you can find links to the changelog and the binary packages over at digitalmars.D.ldc: http://forum.dlang.org/post/nbbocctpmaofpdxqm...@forum.dlang.org Regards, Kai Just noticed that the release binaries are missing from https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/releases/tag/v1.1.0-beta3 This means that the beta currently cannot be tested with TravisCI (wanted to test a DUB related regression fix). I had this problem with `beta3` when compiling a vibe.d project. Performing "release" build using /D/ldc2-1.1.0-beta3/bin/ldc2 for x86_64. vibe-d:utils 0.7.30-rc.1: building configuration "library"... Error: failed to create path to file: .dub/obj/../../.dub/packages/vibe-d-0.7.30-rc.1/vibe-d/.dub/build/library-release-linux.posix-x86_64-ldc_0-2530BD99F72930F46E92BF1D555FBB9A/libvibe-d_utils.a No such file or directory I went back to `beta2` and it worked.
Re: LDC 1.1.0-beta3 has been released!
On 11 October 2016 at 23:16, Kai Nacke via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > On Tuesday, 11 October 2016 at 09:16:36 UTC, Johan Engelen wrote: >> >> On Tuesday, 11 October 2016 at 07:29:00 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote: >> >> Whoops, that's my bad :( >> (I editted a little and clicked the "save draft" button which turned it >> into a draft again, I think) > > > :-) Unintentionally I did the same with the beta2 release. > > Regards, > Kai How's the MS progress on PDB in LLVM?
Re: Beta 2.072.0-b2
Am 10.10.2016 um 12:45 schrieb Sönke Ludwig: Am 10.10.2016 um 12:20 schrieb Martin Nowak: On Monday, 10 October 2016 at 09:03:53 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote: Of course, the new error is more restrictive than it should be, namely if the uninitialized pointer field gets written before the first read, it would still be safe. That's surprising b/c void initializers for struct fields didn't use to work. Hm, thanks for the hint - if that's still the case, that leads to the very simple workaround of simply removing the "= void". Would have been nice in theory to have real void initialization of course, plus it was there for working around that (fixed?) issue with slow compilation times for large static arrays, but there is probably no real reason now to keep it. I need to research the intent behind this to say sth. detailed, though usually an shouldn't break working code, only deprecate it. Okay, I stumbled over another occurrence of this: Bugzilla 16195: delete should be @system <- This makes it impossible to use `scope` variables in @safe scopes. The whole scope/function needs to be marked trusted now. Bugzilla 14496: void initialization of member with indirections must not be @safe <- This makes it impossible to use std.typecons.scoped as an alternative, because it requires void initialization due to its disabled default constructor, or it would again affect the @safety of the whole surrounding scope. I think both need to be adjusted to use a deprecation warning instead of an error. But the first one in conjunction with `scope` variables should be legal anyway, as long as the variable doesn't leave the scope (e.g. DIP1000). Maybe it makes sense to lower this to "scope (exit) () @trusted { delete var; } ();" instead of "scope (exit) delete var;" for now (making sure that the stack allocation optimization still works).