Re: dmd 1.054 and 2.038 release
Thanks a lot everybody. Also special thanks to Don for his increased involvement and stepping up to help with some serious bugfixing! It feels like D2 is becoming more solid and usable every release in spite of major features still being added. Happy new year! It will be an exciting one for D.
Re: dmd 1.054 and 2.038 release
Am 31.12.2009 19:48, schrieb Walter Bright:
Happy New Year!
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.054.zip
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.038.zip
Many thanks to the numerous people who contributed to this update.
Great to see so many fixes that make the language much more hassle-free
to use - especially for newcomers that hit such things for the first
time. However, I have at least one blocker problem in this release:
Because of the now disallowed struct initializers for structs with
constructors (bug 3476), there is no way to use those structs as static
immutable values as the constructors are not CTFE processable.
(- Error: cannot evaluate ((X __ctmp2;
) , __ctmp2).this() at compile time)
This problem has been there since struct constructors have been
introduced. A quick search on bugzilla did not return a matching
bug report, only some other issues related to struct constructors. I'll
file a bug report if noone else knows of any existing one (technically
this would be an 'improvement', but I think it is a really important issue).
This exact place in my code (something like struct Vector(S){ static
invariant Vector zero = Vector(0, 0); }) had to be modified after almost
every compiler release and also rendered a lot of versions useless for
me because there was somtimes no real workaround.
BTW: I was not really watching the newsgroups lately and just noticed
the DIP2/inout implementation. IMO 'inout' is really not a good choice
for the keyword, introducing a backwards imcompatibility, changing the
meaning of a de-facto standard keyword (IDL etc) and not really hitting
the point (placeholder for const/immutable/nothing). Also if I did not
know about the concept of DIP2 such code would have been a mystery for me.
Sönke
Re: dmd 1.054 and 2.038 release
bearophile wrote: Sönke Ludwig: BTW: I was not really watching the newsgroups lately and just noticed the DIP2/inout implementation. IMO 'inout' is really not a good choice for the keyword, introducing a backwards imcompatibility, changing the meaning of a de-facto standard keyword (IDL etc) and not really hitting the point (placeholder for const/immutable/nothing). Also if I did not know about the concept of DIP2 such code would have been a mystery for me. It seems that Walter has yet to learn that names are important. Using nearly random words (and syntax) to express ideas and features, as currently done in D2, is bad. It's the silly invariant / immutable story again. Python devs ask all people how to name things before, and then Guido V. R. picks the most popular name. They do this because a single person may have some bias: what is intuitive for a person (like Guido, or Walter, or Andrei) may be not intuitive for most other people. Choosing one of the most popular choices can't solve all problems, but it helps finding a name/syntax that will result intuitive for most future programmers. Bye, bearophile The discussion on the name is here: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/transporting_qualifier_from_parameter_to_the_return_value_103609.html And no, it was not random.
Re: dmd 1.054 and 2.038 release
Walter Bright: And no, it was not random. Sorry for showing disrespect for your work, it has slipped me. I have used a wrong wording. Do you see a correlation between the inout word and the semantics of this feature? I think this connection is not intuitive. What are the alternative words that can be used here? Are those a worse choice? What are the most intuitive words for most people? Is this feature worth introducing a keyword? Bye, bearophile
Re: dmd 1.054 and 2.038 release
Don wrote: That's also caused by the other half of the patch for 400, in class.c. There's a patch up now for it.
Re: dmd 1.054 and 2.038 release
Sönke Ludwig wrote: Am 31.12.2009 19:48, schrieb Walter Bright: Happy New Year! http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.054.zip http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.038.zip Many thanks to the numerous people who contributed to this update. Great to see so many fixes that make the language much more hassle-free to use - especially for newcomers that hit such things for the first time. However, I have at least one blocker problem in this release: Because of the now disallowed struct initializers for structs with constructors (bug 3476), there is no way to use those structs as static immutable values as the constructors are not CTFE processable. (- Error: cannot evaluate ((X __ctmp2; ) , __ctmp2).this() at compile time) This problem has been there since struct constructors have been introduced. A quick search on bugzilla did not return a matching bug report, only some other issues related to struct constructors. I'll file a bug report if noone else knows of any existing one (technically this would be an 'improvement', but I think it is a really important issue). Bug 3535. There are still several bugs related to struct constructors. Workaround is to use static opCall instead of a constructor.
Re: dmd 1.054 and 2.038 release
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
The only thing I could get to work is this:
struct S
{
int x;
}
inout(int *) getSX(inout S* s) { return s.x;}
void main()
{
S s;
const(S)* sp = s;
int *x = getSX(s);
//int *y = getSX(sp); // uncomment this line for an error
const(int) *y = getSX(sp);
}
If you uncomment the designated line, the error reads:
testinout.d(13): Error: cannot implicitly convert expression (getSX(sp))
of type const(int*) to int*
which looks good.
The error looks misleading to me. The error is with the input argument to
the function, not the return type.
Re: dmd 1.054 and 2.038 release
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 21:03:25 +0100, grauzone wrote: Walter Bright wrote: Happy New Year! http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.054.zip http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.038.zip Many thanks to the numerous people who contributed to this update. Tons of bug fixes == great! But I have a problem: the compiler is either extremely slow for me, or is stuck in an endless loop. All it does is to slowly allocate memory. I aborted the compilation after ~ 20 minutes and 2 GB RAM allocation. This wasn't the case with dmd 1.053, where it only took 5-10 seconds to compile. Can anyone confirm this? I just stumbled over the problem compiling Tango trunk with dmd 1.054. It works on Windows.
Re: dmd 1.054 and 2.038 release
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 21:22:58 +0100, grauzone wrote: bearophile wrote: grauzone: But I have a problem: the compiler is either extremely slow for me, or is stuck in an endless loop. All it does is to slowly allocate memory. I aborted the compilation after ~ 20 minutes and 2 GB RAM allocation. This wasn't the case with dmd 1.053, where it only took 5-10 seconds to compile. Can anyone confirm this? Show the code! I was going to say but it's hundreds of modules, but then I tried to compile some other big hog of code: Tango. And I found compiling this file hangs: http://dsource.org/projects/tango/browser/trunk/tango/core/tools/ Demangler.d?rev=5248 The exact command line for this was: dmd -c -I../tango/core -I.. -I../tango/core/vendor -release -oftango-core-tools-Demangler-release.o ../tango/core/tools/Demangler.d Again, could anyone confirm this? Anyway, no time for this anymore, it's going to be 2010 soon here. Bye, bearophile Someone reported the regression already: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3663
Re: dmd 1.054 and 2.038 release
On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 11:16:00 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
Well I'm sorry to tell that inout is useless as currently implemented.
One important motivating use case was:
inout(char)[] blah(inout(char)[] input) {
return input;
}
void main()
{
blah(xyz);
blah(xyz.dup);
}
That doesn't work at all.
Yeah, I think walter said the inout currently must apply to the entire
parameter/return value. That is a severe limitation I think, but the fact
that it parses makes me think it's a simple fix. It's almost like the
type system is working right, but the trigger to convert inout back and
forth isn't firing.
The second motivating case also doesn't work:
class A {
A _next;
inout A next() inout { return _next; }
}
void main()
{
auto a = new A;
const b = a;
auto c = a.next();
auto d = b.next();
}
I found that inout member functions don't work at all. It's almost as if
the compiler ignores the inout designation when doing the inout const
match.
There are few, if any, cases where the current inout does help. The good
news is that most of the implementation effort has been done so probably
making things work will not be very difficult.
Yeah, I just was disappointed that it was listed as implemented. Half
implemented is ok, as long as it will be fixed.
-Steve
Re: dmd 1.054 and 2.038 release
Moritz Warning wrote: On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 21:22:58 +0100, grauzone wrote: bearophile wrote: grauzone: But I have a problem: the compiler is either extremely slow for me, or is stuck in an endless loop. All it does is to slowly allocate memory. I aborted the compilation after ~ 20 minutes and 2 GB RAM allocation. This wasn't the case with dmd 1.053, where it only took 5-10 seconds to compile. Can anyone confirm this? Show the code! I was going to say but it's hundreds of modules, but then I tried to compile some other big hog of code: Tango. And I found compiling this file hangs: http://dsource.org/projects/tango/browser/trunk/tango/core/tools/ Demangler.d?rev=5248 The exact command line for this was: dmd -c -I../tango/core -I.. -I../tango/core/vendor -release -oftango-core-tools-Demangler-release.o ../tango/core/tools/Demangler.d Again, could anyone confirm this? Anyway, no time for this anymore, it's going to be 2010 soon here. Bye, bearophile Someone reported the regression already: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3663 It's caused by the patch for bug 400.
Re: dmd 1.054 and 2.038 release
On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 19:31:49 +0100, Don wrote: Moritz Warning wrote: On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 21:22:58 +0100, grauzone wrote: bearophile wrote: grauzone: But I have a problem: the compiler is either extremely slow for me, or is stuck in an endless loop. All it does is to slowly allocate memory. I aborted the compilation after ~ 20 minutes and 2 GB RAM allocation. This wasn't the case with dmd 1.053, where it only took 5-10 seconds to compile. Can anyone confirm this? Show the code! I was going to say but it's hundreds of modules, but then I tried to compile some other big hog of code: Tango. And I found compiling this file hangs: http://dsource.org/projects/tango/browser/trunk/tango/core/tools/ Demangler.d?rev=5248 The exact command line for this was: dmd -c -I../tango/core -I.. -I../tango/core/vendor -release -oftango-core-tools-Demangler-release.o ../tango/core/tools/Demangler.d Again, could anyone confirm this? Anyway, no time for this anymore, it's going to be 2010 soon here. Bye, bearophile Someone reported the regression already: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3663 It's caused by the patch for bug 400. Thanks, that fixed it. But now there is another problem/regression: tango/net/device/Berkeley.d(1065): Error: enum member tango.net.device.Berkeley.IPv4Address.ADDR_ANY conflicts with enum member tango.net.device.Berkeley.IPv4Address.ADDR_ANY at tango/net/device/ Berkeley.d(1065) tango/net/device/Berkeley.d(1066): Error: enum member tango.net.device.Berkeley.IPv4Address.ADDR_NONE conflicts with enum member tango.net.device.Berkeley.IPv4Address.ADDR_NONE at tango/net/ device/Berkeley.d(1066) tango/net/device/Berkeley.d(1067): Error: enum member tango.net.device.Berkeley.IPv4Address.PORT_ANY conflicts with enum member tango.net.device.Berkeley.IPv4Address.PORT_ANY at tango/net/device/ Berkeley.d(1067)
Re: dmd 1.054 and 2.038 release
On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 22:35:12 +, Moritz Warning wrote: On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 19:31:49 +0100, Don wrote: Moritz Warning wrote: On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 21:22:58 +0100, grauzone wrote: bearophile wrote: grauzone: But I have a problem: the compiler is either extremely slow for me, or is stuck in an endless loop. All it does is to slowly allocate memory. I aborted the compilation after ~ 20 minutes and 2 GB RAM allocation. This wasn't the case with dmd 1.053, where it only took 5-10 seconds to compile. Can anyone confirm this? Show the code! I was going to say but it's hundreds of modules, but then I tried to compile some other big hog of code: Tango. And I found compiling this file hangs: http://dsource.org/projects/tango/browser/trunk/tango/core/tools/ Demangler.d?rev=5248 The exact command line for this was: dmd -c -I../tango/core -I.. -I../tango/core/vendor -release -oftango-core-tools-Demangler-release.o ../tango/core/tools/Demangler.d Again, could anyone confirm this? Anyway, no time for this anymore, it's going to be 2010 soon here. Bye, bearophile Someone reported the regression already: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3663 It's caused by the patch for bug 400. Thanks, that fixed it. But now there is another problem/regression: tango/net/device/Berkeley.d(1065): Error: enum member tango.net.device.Berkeley.IPv4Address.ADDR_ANY conflicts with enum member tango.net.device.Berkeley.IPv4Address.ADDR_ANY at tango/net/device/ Berkeley.d(1065) tango/net/device/Berkeley.d(1066): Error: enum member tango.net.device.Berkeley.IPv4Address.ADDR_NONE conflicts with enum member tango.net.device.Berkeley.IPv4Address.ADDR_NONE at tango/net/ device/Berkeley.d(1066) tango/net/device/Berkeley.d(1067): Error: enum member tango.net.device.Berkeley.IPv4Address.PORT_ANY conflicts with enum member tango.net.device.Berkeley.IPv4Address.PORT_ANY at tango/net/device/ Berkeley.d(1067) I've made a ticket: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3664 (tested with original dmd 1.054)
Re: dmd 1.054 and 2.038 release
Moritz Warning wrote: On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 22:35:12 +, Moritz Warning wrote: On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 19:31:49 +0100, Don wrote: Moritz Warning wrote: On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 21:22:58 +0100, grauzone wrote: bearophile wrote: grauzone: But I have a problem: the compiler is either extremely slow for me, or is stuck in an endless loop. All it does is to slowly allocate memory. I aborted the compilation after ~ 20 minutes and 2 GB RAM allocation. This wasn't the case with dmd 1.053, where it only took 5-10 seconds to compile. Can anyone confirm this? Show the code! I was going to say but it's hundreds of modules, but then I tried to compile some other big hog of code: Tango. And I found compiling this file hangs: http://dsource.org/projects/tango/browser/trunk/tango/core/tools/ Demangler.d?rev=5248 The exact command line for this was: dmd -c -I../tango/core -I.. -I../tango/core/vendor -release -oftango-core-tools-Demangler-release.o ../tango/core/tools/Demangler.d Again, could anyone confirm this? Anyway, no time for this anymore, it's going to be 2010 soon here. Bye, bearophile Someone reported the regression already: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3663 It's caused by the patch for bug 400. Thanks, that fixed it. But now there is another problem/regression: tango/net/device/Berkeley.d(1065): Error: enum member tango.net.device.Berkeley.IPv4Address.ADDR_ANY conflicts with enum member tango.net.device.Berkeley.IPv4Address.ADDR_ANY at tango/net/device/ Berkeley.d(1065) tango/net/device/Berkeley.d(1066): Error: enum member tango.net.device.Berkeley.IPv4Address.ADDR_NONE conflicts with enum member tango.net.device.Berkeley.IPv4Address.ADDR_NONE at tango/net/ device/Berkeley.d(1066) tango/net/device/Berkeley.d(1067): Error: enum member tango.net.device.Berkeley.IPv4Address.PORT_ANY conflicts with enum member tango.net.device.Berkeley.IPv4Address.PORT_ANY at tango/net/device/ Berkeley.d(1067) I've made a ticket: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3664 (tested with original dmd 1.054) That's also caused by the other half of the patch for 400, in class.c.
dmd 1.054 and 2.038 release
Happy New Year! http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.054.zip http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.038.zip Many thanks to the numerous people who contributed to this update.
Re: dmd 1.054 and 2.038 release
Hello Walter, Happy New Year! http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.054.zip http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.038.zip Many thanks to the numerous people who contributed to this update. New updates, Always nice to see! Damn, I like to see those long list of bugs!
Re: dmd 1.054 and 2.038 release
Walter Bright: Happy New Year! Happy end of the year to you too! Is this the last release for the 2009? ;-) This is funny: min(x, y) = 10;// sets x to 10 This looks by far like the most useful improvement/change of this DMD release, I've already tried it and I like it a lot, thanks to Don and to you! Bugzilla 2816: Sudden-death static assert is not very useful Bye, bearophile
Re: dmd 1.054 and 2.038 release
Walter Bright wrote: Happy New Year! http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.054.zip http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.038.zip Many thanks to the numerous people who contributed to this update. Tons of bug fixes == great! But I have a problem: the compiler is either extremely slow for me, or is stuck in an endless loop. All it does is to slowly allocate memory. I aborted the compilation after ~ 20 minutes and 2 GB RAM allocation. This wasn't the case with dmd 1.053, where it only took 5-10 seconds to compile. Can anyone confirm this?
Re: dmd 1.054 and 2.038 release
bearophile wrote:
Walter Bright:
Happy New Year!
Happy end of the year to you too!
Is this the last release for the 2009? ;-)
This is funny:
min(x, y) = 10;// sets x to 10
This looks by far like the most useful improvement/change of this DMD release,
I've already tried it and I like it a lot, thanks to Don and to you!
Bugzilla 2816: Sudden-death static assert is not very useful
I can't take credit for that. It comes from the LDC guys, I just
enhanced it slightly.
There are 26 Bugzilla votes fixed in this release, which is probably a
record. (I'm assuming bug 1961('scoped const') is considered to be fixed).
Re: dmd 1.054 and 2.038 release
Walter Bright: I don't think the min() example is that useful, No, I meant it's the Bugzilla 2816 that's very useful! :-) Bye, bearophile
Re: dmd 1.054 and 2.038 release
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 15:05:56 -0500, Don nos...@nospam.com wrote:
bearophile wrote:
Walter Bright:
Happy New Year!
Happy end of the year to you too!
Is this the last release for the 2009? ;-)
This is funny:
min(x, y) = 10;// sets x to 10
This looks by far like the most useful improvement/change of this DMD
release, I've already tried it and I like it a lot, thanks to Don and
to you!
Bugzilla 2816: Sudden-death static assert is not very useful
I can't take credit for that. It comes from the LDC guys, I just
enhanced it slightly.
There are 26 Bugzilla votes fixed in this release, which is probably a
record. (I'm assuming bug 1961('scoped const') is considered to be
fixed).
Sadly, it's not fixed yet :(
struct S
{
int x;
inout(int)* getX() inout { return x;}
}
void main()
{
S s;
int *x = s.getX();
}
testinout.d(10): Error: function testinout.S.getX () inout is not callable
using argument types ()
testinout.d(10): Error: cannot implicitly convert expression (s.getX()) of
type inout(int)* to int*
It appears the auto-conversion is not happening on the return, and also
the call isn't working.
I'm surprised this was listed as an implemented feature... Is there some
test code that you were using to confirm this Walter?
-Steve
Re: dmd 1.054 and 2.038 release
bearophile wrote: grauzone: But I have a problem: the compiler is either extremely slow for me, or is stuck in an endless loop. All it does is to slowly allocate memory. I aborted the compilation after ~ 20 minutes and 2 GB RAM allocation. This wasn't the case with dmd 1.053, where it only took 5-10 seconds to compile. Can anyone confirm this? Show the code! I was going to say but it's hundreds of modules, but then I tried to compile some other big hog of code: Tango. And I found compiling this file hangs: http://dsource.org/projects/tango/browser/trunk/tango/core/tools/Demangler.d?rev=5248 The exact command line for this was: dmd -c -I../tango/core -I.. -I../tango/core/vendor -release -oftango-core-tools-Demangler-release.o ../tango/core/tools/Demangler.d Again, could anyone confirm this? Anyway, no time for this anymore, it's going to be 2010 soon here. Bye, bearophile
Re: dmd 1.054 and 2.038 release
Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote in message news:hhirlb$fj...@digitalmars.com... Happy New Year! http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.054.zip http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.038.zip Many thanks to the numerous people who contributed to this update. Improved static assert messages and a few forward reference fixes == Awesome!
Re: dmd 1.054 and 2.038 release
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
(I'm assuming bug 1961('scoped const') is considered to be
fixed).
Sadly, it's not fixed yet :(
struct S
{
int x;
inout(int)* getX() inout { return x;}
}
void main()
{
S s;
int *x = s.getX();
}
testinout.d(10): Error: function testinout.S.getX () inout is not
callable using argument types ()
testinout.d(10): Error: cannot implicitly convert expression (s.getX())
of type inout(int)* to int*
It appears the auto-conversion is not happening on the return, and also
the call isn't working.
The inout on the return has to be at the top level, as in inout(int *).
This probably needs improvement.
Re: dmd 1.054 and 2.038 release
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
struct S
{
int x;
inout(int)* getX() inout { return x;}
}
void main()
{
S s;
int *x = s.getX();
}
testinout.d(10): Error: function testinout.S.getX () inout is not callable
using argument types ()
That's the same error message as
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3642
Does that error message ever pop up in a meaningful context???
testinout.d(10): Error: cannot implicitly convert expression (s.getX()) of
type inout(int)* to int*
At least in this case, there are other error messages that give a strong hint
to what the real cause is. I'm still crossing my fingers that 3642 can be
improved in some way.
