[Issue 5553] Tables get doubled with the new std.ddoc
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5553 Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||INVALID --- Comment #1 from Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com 2011-09-09 00:44:28 PDT --- It turns out that a comma was missing in the table, and that somehow caused it to double. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 6557] Inplace enum literals
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6557 bearophile_h...@eml.cc changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||INVALID --- Comment #5 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-09-09 03:14:19 PDT --- The basic idea is cute, but I think it currently doesn't work. So I close this enhancement request, to be reopened if better ideas come. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 6634] New: std.path.globMatch throws wrong assertion
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6634
Summary: std.path.globMatch throws wrong assertion
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: Other
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Severity: regression
Priority: P2
Component: Phobos
AssignedTo: nob...@puremagic.com
ReportedBy: r.sagita...@gmx.de
--- Comment #0 from Rainer Schuetze r.sagita...@gmx.de 2011-09-09 03:28:35
PDT ---
import std.path;
void main()
{
globMatch(a.di, *.d);
}
asserts with
core.exception.asserter...@std.path(2239): Assertion failure
The same happens when using fnmatch instead of globMatch. The problem is a
wrong assert at the end of both functions:
assert(ni = path.length);
The wrong assert has been there before, but was actually never executed because
it was built into the runtime library in release mode only. Now that the
functions are templates, code generation moved to the user project, so the
asserts can actually trigger.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3659] Too much exegesis on opEquals
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3659 Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #10 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2011-09-09 04:07:10 PDT --- I have posted pull requests to fix this issue. https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/373 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/pull/70 -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 6629] std.conv.emplace: enforcement is too weak
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6629 timon.g...@gmx.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||INVALID --- Comment #2 from timon.g...@gmx.ch 2011-09-09 05:04:22 PDT --- The enforcement was actually correct, since apparently alignment of size_t.sizeof is enough. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 6631] core.time module constructor runs AFTER main program's module constructor
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6631 --- Comment #2 from Vladimir Panteleev thecybersha...@gmail.com 2011-09-09 05:27:48 PDT --- Note that adding shared to the main module constructor doesn't change the situation. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 6635] New: std.conv.emplace: enforcement is too weak
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6635
Summary: std.conv.emplace: enforcement is too weak
Product: D
Version: unspecified
Platform: Other
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: Phobos
AssignedTo: nob...@puremagic.com
ReportedBy: timon.g...@gmx.ch
--- Comment #0 from timon.g...@gmx.ch 2011-09-09 05:35:09 PDT ---
T emplace(T, Args...)(void[] chunk, Args args) if (is(T == class))
{
enforce(chunk.length = __traits(classInstanceSize, T),
new ConvException(emplace: chunk size too small));
auto a = cast(size_t) chunk.ptr;
enforce(a % T.alignof == 0, text(a, vs. , T.alignof));
...
}
T.alignof is the alignment of the class reference, always equal to
size_t.sizeof, not the alignment of the class instance.
A class instance can require a larger alignment in some cases, eg. if it has
fields with larger alignments.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 6629] std.conv.emplace: enforcement is too weak
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6629 timon.g...@gmx.ch changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|INVALID |FIXED --- Comment #3 from timon.g...@gmx.ch 2011-09-09 05:53:08 PDT --- (In reply to comment #2) The enforcement was actually correct, since apparently alignment of size_t.sizeof is enough. It is actually too weak, but enforcing 16-byte alignment is not the correct solution either, see new try at http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6635 -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 6632] toUTFz sometimes does not work with const parameters
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6632
zeljkog zeljko@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeljko@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from zeljkog zeljko@gmail.com 2011-09-09 15:36:01 CEST ---
It is compiler issue:
import std.stdio;
void f(S)(S str){
writeln(str);
}
alias f!(string) fc;
alias f!(wstring) fc;
void main(){
fc(foo); // L11
//~ fc(fooc); // works
//~ auto s = foo;
//~ fc(s); // works
}
//~ Compilation breaks with message:
//~ bug.d(11): Error: function alias bug.f called with argument types:
//~ ((string))
//~ matches both:
//~ bug.f!(string).f(string str)
//~ and:
//~ bug.f!(immutable(wchar)[]).f(immutable(wchar)[] str)
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 6632] toUTFz sometimes does not work with const parameters
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6632 --- Comment #2 from zeljkog zeljko@gmail.com 2011-09-09 15:44:55 CEST --- Sorry, it's another issue. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 6630] Assigning null to class with nested alias this class is misinterpreted
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6630 Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch, wrong-code --- Comment #1 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2011-09-09 07:34:42 PDT --- https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/374 -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 5252] pure nothrow Rebindable
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5252 --- Comment #1 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2011-09-09 07:59:31 PDT --- Maybe this issue was fixed by pure nothrow inference feature. In 2.055, that code can compile. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 6521] writeln(const(tuple)) doesn't show the field values
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6521 Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED --- Comment #3 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2011-09-09 08:03:36 PDT --- Fixed. https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/commit/4c8cbd2f29637abfadb2d3057a5e747fe8084d4d -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 6631] core.time module constructor runs AFTER main program's module constructor
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6631 --- Comment #3 from Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com 2011-09-09 08:05:25 PDT --- Right, what I was saying though is that all shared ctors are run before all non-shared ones. So it is very surprising that a shared ctor has *not* been run before a non-shared one, regardless of dependency. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4972] to!() needs a template constraint
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4972 Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED --- Comment #1 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2011-09-09 08:31:43 PDT --- With pull #181, I did changed toImpl template constraint. https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/181 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/commit/008300792cc18250106f9419cdf1e18dfa805846#L0L1738 After that, this problem was resolved. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 6636] New: Destructors of static array elements are not called on function parameter
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6636
Summary: Destructors of static array elements are not called on
function parameter
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: DMD
AssignedTo: nob...@puremagic.com
ReportedBy: k.hara...@gmail.com
--- Comment #0 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2011-09-09 09:10:48 PDT ---
static int sdtor;
struct S
{
~this()
{
++sdtor;
}
}
void func(S[3] sa)
{
// sa should be destructed at the end of func()
}
void main()
{
sdtor = 0;
S[3] sa;
func(sa);
assert(sdtor == 3);
}
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 6637] New: Postblits of static array elements are not called on function argument
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6637
Summary: Postblits of static array elements are not called on
function argument
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: DMD
AssignedTo: nob...@puremagic.com
ReportedBy: k.hara...@gmail.com
--- Comment #0 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2011-09-09 09:13:45 PDT ---
struct S
{
static int spblit;
this(this){ ++spblit; }
}
void test()
{
void func(S[3] sa){}
S[3] sa;
func(sa); // sa should be copied
assert(S.spblit == 3);
}
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 6470] postblits not called on arrays of structs
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6470 Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #1 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2011-09-09 09:35:14 PDT --- https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/375 -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 2356] array literal as non static initializer generates horribly inefficient code.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2356 Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #4 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2011-09-09 09:35:07 PDT --- https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/375 -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3703] static array assignment
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3703 Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||accepts-invalid, patch --- Comment #1 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2011-09-09 09:35:38 PDT --- https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/375 -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 5290] Static array literals with too few elements
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5290 Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #1 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2011-09-09 09:35:47 PDT --- https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/375 -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 6636] Destructors of static array elements are not called on function parameter
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6636 Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch, wrong-code --- Comment #1 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2011-09-09 09:35:57 PDT --- https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/375 -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 6637] Postblits of static array elements are not called on function argument
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6637 Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch, wrong-code --- Comment #1 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2011-09-09 09:36:08 PDT --- https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/375 -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 2356] array literal as non static initializer generates horribly inefficient code.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2356 --- Comment #5 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2011-09-09 09:36:49 PDT --- After applying my patch, the sample code generates like follows: (output of ddbg in 64-bit Windows 7) c:\d\test.d:1 void main() 00402010: c80center 0xc, 0x0 c:\d\test.d:3 int[3] x = [1,2,3]; 00402014: c745f40100 mov dword [ebp-0xc], 0x1 0040201b: c745f80200 mov dword [ebp-0x8], 0x2 00402022: c745fc0300 mov dword [ebp-0x4], 0x3 00402029: 31c0xor eax, eax test.obj 0040202b: c9 leave 0040202c: c3 ret -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 5252] pure nothrow Rebindable
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5252 bearophile_h...@eml.cc changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 6609] std.conv.parse!Integer should consider sign when radix == 10
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6609 Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #1 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2011-09-09 10:18:49 PDT --- https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/250 -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 5290] Static array literals with too few elements
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5290 bearophile_h...@eml.cc changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bearophile_h...@eml.cc --- Comment #2 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-09-09 10:29:30 PDT --- (In reply to comment #1) https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/375 Pull 375 is not about bug 3849 too, right? -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 5290] Static array literals with too few elements
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5290
--- Comment #4 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-09-09 11:00:10 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Pull 375 does not support `int[$] = [1, 2, 3];`.
OK. This is expected.
Currenly DMD runs code like this (I don't like this, but this is working as
designed!):
int[3] arr = [1, 2];
void main() {}
I presume Pull 375 lets this kind of code pass, right?
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 5290] Static array literals with too few elements
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5290
--- Comment #5 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2011-09-09 11:23:57 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
int[3] arr = [1, 2];
void main() {}
I presume Pull 375 lets this kind of code pass, right?
??? Pull 375 rejects statically above code, it is expected behavior from this
issue.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 6638] New: Suggestions/error messages for misuses of for/foreach
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6638
Summary: Suggestions/error messages for misuses of for/foreach
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P2
Component: DMD
AssignedTo: nob...@puremagic.com
ReportedBy: bearophile_h...@eml.cc
--- Comment #0 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-09-09 11:24:56 PDT ---
Languages and compilers copy each other all the time. This is a low-priority
diagnostic enhancement request inspired by Rust compiler:
https://github.com/graydon/rust/wiki/Error-reporting
Use of for where for each was meant.
for (v in foo.iter()) // suggest for each
This is wrong D code (in my code the mistakes #5 and #7 are common enough):
void main() {
for (i; 0 .. 10) {} // #1
int[5] a;
for (x; a) {} // #2
foreach (int = 0; i 10; i++) {} // #3
foreach (i, 0 .. 10) {} // #4
foreach (i, x, a) {} // #5
foreach (i; x, a) {} // #6
foreach (i; x; a) {} // #7
}
DMD 2.055 gives:
test.d(2): found '..' when expecting ';' following for condition
test.d(4): found ')' when expecting ';' following for condition
test.d(5): found 'foreach' when expecting ')'
test.d(5): found '=' when expecting '.' following int
test.d(5): found '0' when expecting identifier following 'int.'
test.d(5): found ';' when expecting ')'
test.d(5): found 'i' when expecting ';' following statement
test.d(5): found '' instead of statement
test.d(5): found ')' when expecting ';' following statement
test.d(6): basic type expected, not 0
test.d(6): no identifier for declarator int
test.d(6): found '0' when expecting ';'
test.d(6): expression expected, not '..'
test.d(6): found '10' when expecting ')'
test.d(6): found ')' instead of statement
test.d(7): Declaration expected, not 'foreach'
test.d(8): no identifier for declarator x
test.d(8): semicolon expected, not ')'
test.d(8): Declaration expected, not ')'
test.d(9): no identifier for declarator x
test.d(9): no identifier for declarator a
In some (or all) such 7 situations the D compiler can generate specific better
error messages, with a suggestion.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 6296] Assertion failure: '0' on line 1114 in file 'glue.c'
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6296
Denis verylonglogin@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Assertion failure: '0' on |Assertion failure: '0' on
|line 1121 in file 'glue.c' |line 1114 in file 'glue.c'
--- Comment #13 from Denis verylonglogin@gmail.com 2011-09-09 11:31:21
PDT ---
dmd 1.070 now fails with:
Assertion failure: '0' on line 1114 in file 'glue.c'
Reduced test case:
---
void f(A)(A) { }
bool b = is(typeof( f(x) ));
---
As it works for `f!(typeof(x))(x)`, looks like IFTI bug
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 5290] Static array literals with too few elements
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5290
--- Comment #6 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-09-09 11:31:56 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
??? Pull 375 rejects statically above code, it is expected behavior from this
issue.
I see. I suggest you to read the whole thread of bug 3849.
Code like the following is working as designed, so if your patch refuses this
code, then your patch is implementing an enhancement too (it means it's
changing the D specs):
int[3] arr = [1, 2];
void main() {}
Note that I support turning this kind of code into a compile-time error, but
Walter (used to) wants it to compile. So at least I suggest your comment of
Pull 375 to say this example is now a compile-time error.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 5290] Static array literals with too few elements
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5290
--- Comment #7 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-09-09 11:34:38 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Code like the following is working as designed, so if your patch refuses this
code, then your patch is implementing an enhancement too (it means it's
changing the D specs):
int[3] arr = [1, 2];
void main() {}
Note: For the situations where people want to specify less items than the
arrays length I suggested an *explicit* syntax, like:
int[3] arr = [1, 2, ...];
void main() {}
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 5888] createKey and getKey in registry.d always use KEY_ALL_ACCESS
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5888 Denis verylonglogin@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED --- Comment #1 from Denis verylonglogin@gmail.com 2011-09-09 11:35:16 PDT --- Fixed with other issues in: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/commit/830537e508c6960fc139a42dc3f2024ade9cb564 -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 5290] Static array literals with too few elements
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5290 --- Comment #8 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-09-09 11:52:16 PDT --- See also: http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.Darticle_id=144210 -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
