[Issue 7019] implicit constructors are inconsistently allowed
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7019 --- Comment #10 from github-bugzi...@puremagic.com 2012-11-11 00:01:14 PST --- Commits pushed to master at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/f51a4268bcf42e14ef40bdc0137399cddc965f03 fix Issue 7019 - implicit constructors are inconsistently allowed https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/2daf24fd4a036331d3428f9381c65a9be3b12319 Merge pull request #1213 from 9rnsr/fix7019 Issue 7019 - implicit constructors are inconsistently allowed -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 8376] 64 bit codegen bug involving dynamically indexed static array and continue statement
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8376 Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED --- Comment #5 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2012-11-11 00:38:22 PST --- https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/687b4e28923b08756569a4cf1148b069e928c424 -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 8991] adding a __ctfe branch with return to a function breaks NRVO
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8991 --- Comment #2 from Dmitry Olshansky dmitry.o...@gmail.com 2012-11-11 01:20:32 PST --- (In reply to comment #1) It seems that dmd is confused by return statement within if(__ctfe) block: comment it out and you will get desired behavior (tested on 2.060nix). Yeah, problem is: I want __ctfe branch to just do a copy and normal branch to move via memcpy and other black magic. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 8993] Implement unique references/isolated memory
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8993 Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||d...@me.com --- Comment #11 from Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com 2012-11-11 01:54:31 PST --- I recommend you take a look at some blog posts from Bartosz Milewski. He was involved for a while in the D community and had some ideas about race-free multithreading with the help of a type system supporting using unique and lent. Search in the newsgroups archives for Bartosz Milewski. http://bartoszmilewski.com/2009/05/26/race-free-multithreading/ -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 8996] New: [ICE](e2ir.c line 768) with bigint main-imported
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8996
Summary: [ICE](e2ir.c line 768) with bigint main-imported
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: x86
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: DMD
AssignedTo: nob...@puremagic.com
ReportedBy: bearophile_h...@eml.cc
--- Comment #0 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2012-11-11 03:05:54 PST ---
void foo(T)(T) {}
void main() {
import std.bigint;
foo(BigInt());
}
DMD 2.061alpha gives:
ZERO
Internal error: e2ir.c 768
I don't know if this is a regression.
(And I don't know where that ZERO comes from.)
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 8993] Implement unique references/isolated memory
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8993 --- Comment #12 from S�nke Ludwig slud...@outerproduct.org 2012-11-11 04:49:41 PST --- (In reply to comment #11) I recommend you take a look at some blog posts from Bartosz Milewski. He was involved for a while in the D community and had some ideas about race-free multithreading with the help of a type system supporting using unique and lent. Search in the newsgroups archives for Bartosz Milewski. http://bartoszmilewski.com/2009/05/26/race-free-multithreading/ I've read those back then. Bartosz' system was very powerful but unfortunately complex to implement and had some implications on performance. The good thing with the MS approach is that it accomplishes an important part of it without requiring explicit owner tracking. It surely doesn't fix 'shared' the way that Bartosz' system would, but at least it alleviates the need for it in quite some places.(In reply to comment #11) -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 8997] New: template instances omit symbol that may be used in other modules
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8997
Summary: template instances omit symbol that may be used in
other modules
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: DMD
AssignedTo: nob...@puremagic.com
ReportedBy: deadal...@gmail.com
--- Comment #0 from deadalnix deadal...@gmail.com 2012-11-11 10:16:37 PST ---
See cod below :
module linkfailclass;
class A {
A[string] foobar;
}
module linkfailuse;
import linkfailclass;
void main() {
auto a = new A();
foreach(key; a.foobar.byKey()) {
}
}
Then compile :
dmd -c linkfailclass.d
dmd -c linkfailuse.d
dmd -oflinkfail linkfailclass.o linkfailuse.o
linkfailuse.o: In function `_Dmain':
linkfailuse.d:(.text._Dmain+0x20): undefined reference to
`_D6object45__T16AssociativeArrayTAyaTC13linkfailclass1AZ16AssociativeArray5byKeyMFNdZS6object45__T16AssociativeArrayTAyaTC13linkfailclass1AZ16AssociativeArray5byKeyM6Result'
linkfailuse.d:(.text._Dmain+0x29): undefined reference to
`_D6object45__T16AssociativeArrayTAyaTC13linkfailclass1AZ16AssociativeArray5Range5emptyMxFNdZb'
linkfailuse.d:(.text._Dmain+0x36): undefined reference to
`_D6object45__T16AssociativeArrayTAyaTC13linkfailclass1AZ16AssociativeArray5byKeyMFNdZS6object45__T16AssociativeArrayTAyaTC13linkfailclass1AZ16AssociativeArray5byKeyM6Result6Result5frontMFNcNdZAya'
linkfailuse.d:(.text._Dmain+0x46): undefined reference to
`_D6object45__T16AssociativeArrayTAyaTC13linkfailclass1AZ16AssociativeArray5Range8popFrontMFZv'
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
--- errorlevel 1
Template is instantiated in linkfailclass so linkfailuse assume it is in it.
But some members of the template are not instanciated because not used in
linkfailclass. linkfailuse assume they are.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 8994] typeof fails when passing delegate as alias parameter
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8994 --- Comment #2 from deadalnix deadal...@gmail.com 2012-11-11 10:29:36 PST --- (In reply to comment #1) This is issue 8899. Change lambda template a = visit(a) to lambda function (A a) = visit(a) and the code compiles. I'm not sure at the problem trigger itself precisely when using typeof. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 8957] Closure not recognized when passing type with post-blit as lazy parameter
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8957 --- Comment #2 from David Nadlinger c...@klickverbot.at 2012-11-11 13:59:18 PST --- @Don: For an analysis of why this happens and a minimal test case, see the linked dmd-internals thread (I'm fairly sure that it is correct, having spent quite some time tracking down the issue in LDC). As to whether this is related to the other bugs, I'm not sure OTOH if an intermediary DeclarationExp is also generated for them. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 8957] Closure not recognized when passing type with post-blit as lazy parameter
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8957 Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bugzi...@digitalmars.com Severity|normal |major -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 8998] New: 'inout pure' returns immutable, which in reality is mutable
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8998
Summary: 'inout pure' returns immutable, which in reality is
mutable
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: DMD
AssignedTo: nob...@puremagic.com
ReportedBy: acehr...@yahoo.com
--- Comment #0 from Ali Cehreli acehr...@yahoo.com 2012-11-11 15:25:20 PST ---
class A
{
int i;
}
class C
{
A a;
this()
{
a = new A();
}
// WRONG: Returns immutable(A)
immutable(A) get() inout pure
{
return a;
}
}
void main()
{
auto c = new C;
immutable(A) imm_a = c.get();
assert(imm_a.i == 0);
c.a.i = 100; // -- changes immutable(A)
assert(imm_a.i == 100); // -- Oops!
}
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 8994] typeof fails when passing delegate as alias parameter
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8994 --- Comment #3 from Maxim Fomin ma...@maxim-fomin.ru 2012-11-11 18:25:37 PST --- (In reply to comment #2) (In reply to comment #1) This is issue 8899. Change lambda template a = visit(a) to lambda function (A a) = visit(a) and the code compiles. I'm not sure at the problem trigger itself precisely when using typeof. I think that using lambda without parameter type is often a problem. In lucky cases there is compilation error and in worse cases this leads to mysterious bugs. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 8349] CTFE memcpy Error with ctRegex
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8349 Denis Shelomovskij verylonglogin@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||verylonglogin@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Denis Shelomovskij verylonglogin@gmail.com 2012-11-12 10:11:08 MSK --- Fixed in: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/923 -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 8993] Implement unique references/isolated memory
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8993 Rob Jacques sandf...@jhu.edu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sandf...@jhu.edu --- Comment #13 from Rob Jacques sandf...@jhu.edu 2012-11-11 23:25:31 PST --- (In reply to comment #8) implement further relaxations bit by bit (e.g. implicit scoped isolated-writable-isolated conversion). To clarify for those who didn't read the paper, the implicit conversion of writable-isolated only applies to the return value of a moderately pure function: (a pure function whose arguments are only isolated or immutable) So it is similar to the implicit conversion of the return of a strongly pure function from mutable to immutable. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
