[Bug 169] New: Can't build druntime on os x (ICE)

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=169 Bug ID: 169 Summary: Can't build druntime on os x (ICE) Product: GDC Version: development Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Pri

[Bug 169] Can't build druntime on os x (ICE)

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=169 John Colvin changed: What|Removed |Added Hardware|All |x86_64 OS|All

[Bug 170] New: Template functions in templates missing member symbols

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=170 Bug ID: 170 Summary: Template functions in templates missing member symbols Product: GDC Version: 4.8.x Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal

[Bug 171] New: >>>= broken with short integers

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=171 Bug ID: 171 Summary: >>>= broken with short integers Product: GDC Version: development Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priori

[Bug 171] >>>= broken with short integers

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=171 --- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw --- Problem is that in the operation: a = a >> 1; 'a' is promoted to an unsigned integer for normal operations before the final result being downcasted back. So we get the following sequence. a => -1

[Bug 171] >>>= broken with short integers

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=171 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail b

[Bug 171] >>>= broken with short integers

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=171 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug 165] gdc segfault on scope(failure)

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=165 Ketmar Dark changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug 172] New: Add support for GCC's weak attribute

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=172 Bug ID: 172 Summary: Add support for GCC's weak attribute Product: GDC Version: development Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement

[Bug 173] New: internal compiler error typeMerge

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=173 Bug ID: 173 Summary: internal compiler error typeMerge Product: GDC Version: 4.9.x Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: minor Priority: N

[Bug 174] New: core.atomic.atomicFence() should be @nogc

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=174 Bug ID: 174 Summary: core.atomic.atomicFence() should be @nogc Product: GDC Version: 4.9.x Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal

[Bug 174] core.atomic.atomicFence() should be @nogc

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=174 Johannes Pfau changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug 78] GDC-4.7: Compilation broken

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=78 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug 63] c++ compiler built even when --disable-bootstrap is given

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=63 --- Comment #4 from Iain Buclaw --- I think it should now be possible to remove this. C++ is now *the* boot language for gcc. So by that measure it *must* be automatically enabled in bootstrapped builds. Let me test... -- You are receiving th

[Bug 63] c++ compiler built even when --disable-bootstrap is given

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=63 Timo Sintonen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||t.sinto...@luukku.com --- Comment #5 from

[Bug 63] c++ compiler built even when --disable-bootstrap is given

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=63 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug 175] New: immutable override - error in error reporting

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=175 Bug ID: 175 Summary: immutable override - error in error reporting Product: GDC Version: 4.9.x Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal

[Bug 175] immutable override - error in error reporting

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=175 --- Comment #1 from Danny Milosavljevic --- According to Ketmar it's both non-DMD bug, and nonexistent-in-new-gdc bug. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

[Bug 176] New: __ctfe variable should not be readable in CTFE

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=176 Bug ID: 176 Summary: __ctfe variable should not be readable in CTFE Product: GDC Version: development Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal

[Bug 177] New: core.thread won't compile

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=177 Bug ID: 177 Summary: core.thread won't compile Product: GDC Version: development Hardware: All OS: OSX Status: NEW Severity: critical Priority:

[Bug 168] Missing "section" GCC attribute in GDC

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=168 Jens Bauer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jens-bugzi...@gpio.dk --- Comment #1 from J

[Bug 172] Add support for GCC's weak attribute

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=172 Jens Bauer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jens-bugzi...@gpio.dk --- Comment #1 from J

[Bug 126] Add support for attribute to mark data as volatile.

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=126 Johannes Pfau changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug 96] phobos build doesn't use CFLAGS_FOR_BUILD in most cases

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=96 Johannes Pfau changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug 105] improve documentation about gdc internals

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=105 Johannes Pfau changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug 160] Support for "Variable Templates" missing/broken

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=160 Johannes Pfau changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug 168] Missing "section" GCC attribute in GDC

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=168 Johannes Pfau changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug 137] missing import in std.range

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=137 Johannes Pfau changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug 138] std.enconding: EncodingSchemeUtf16Native and EncodingSchemeUtf32Native invalid splicing

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=138 Johannes Pfau changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug 82] Crash when compiled with gdc (not dmd). Related to direntry? or with?

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=82 Johannes Pfau changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug 177] core.thread won't compile

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=177 Johannes Pfau changed: What|Removed |Added CC||johannesp...@gmail.com -- You are recei

[Bug 95] Definition of _tls_data_array with version( OSX ) in thread.d

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=95 Johannes Pfau changed: What|Removed |Added CC||johannesp...@gmail.com -- You are receiv

[Bug 172] Add support for GCC's weak attribute

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=172 Johannes Pfau changed: What|Removed |Added CC||johannesp...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 fr

[Bug 126] Add support for attribute to mark data as volatile.

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=126 Jens Bauer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jens-bugzi...@gpio.dk --- Comment #23 from

[Bug 91] String literals not always properly zero-terminated

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=91 Jens Bauer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jens-bugzi...@gpio.dk --- Comment #11 from J

[Bug 126] Add support for attribute to mark data as volatile.

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=126 --- Comment #24 from Iain Buclaw --- (In reply to Jens Bauer from comment #23) > (In reply to Johannes Pfau from comment #22) > > The volatileLoad/Store intrinsics will have to suffice. > > Are these guaranteed to be in the specified order for v

[Bug 178] New: cc1d locks up when specifying function instead of function pointer in an array

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=178 Bug ID: 178 Summary: cc1d locks up when specifying function instead of function pointer in an array Product: GDC Version: 4.9.x Hardware: PPC OS: OSX

[Bug 178] cc1d locks up when specifying function instead of function pointer in an array

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=178 Ketmar Dark changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ket...@ketmar.no-ip.org --- Comment #1 fro

[Bug 178] cc1d locks up when specifying function instead of function pointer in an array

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=178 --- Comment #2 from Ketmar Dark --- ah, i looked closer at your sample and found that it's an expected behavior. ;-) what going on here is CTFE. as `ResetHandler` never exits, CTFE interpreter never exits too. it's possible to write a simple enl

[Bug 178] cc1d locks up when specifying function instead of function pointer in an array

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=178 --- Comment #3 from Ketmar Dark --- p.s. but for this particular case CTFE can fail early, as `Reset_Handler` is `void`, so there is no sense to interpret it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

[Bug 178] cc1d locks up when specifying function instead of function pointer in an array

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=178 --- Comment #4 from Jens Bauer --- Being new to D is probably why this confuses me. Eg.. I am expecting the compiler to generate code, not execute it. The GDC I've build is a cross-compiler, thus it generates code for a different architecture t

[Bug 178] cc1d locks up when specifying function instead of function pointer in an array

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=178 --- Comment #5 from Ketmar Dark --- see the part about CTFE here: http://dlang.org/function.html#interpretation one of the features of D is that it can run code in *compile* *time* (hence the "CTFE" term — it's "Compile Time Function Evaluation"

[Bug 178] cc1d locks up when specifying function instead of function pointer in an array

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=178 --- Comment #6 from Ketmar Dark --- i.e. D compiler can interpret D code in compile time, it has full-featured D interpreter built in. ;-) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

[Bug 178] cc1d locks up when specifying function instead of function pointer in an array

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=178 --- Comment #7 from Jens Bauer --- (In reply to Ketmar Dark from comment #5) > private immutable ubyte[256] tblParity = genParityTable(); > > it's vital to understand that `tblParity` is initialized in COMPILE time, > there is no runtime functio

[Bug 178] cc1d locks up when specifying function instead of function pointer in an array

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=178 --- Comment #8 from Ketmar Dark --- (In reply to Jens Bauer from comment #7) > I agree; CTFE is a good feature, indeed. > Does this happen only for immutable assignments ? and for array initialization. you'd better read some D book to get it rig

[Bug 178] cc1d locks up when specifying function instead of function pointer in an array

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=178 --- Comment #9 from Jens Bauer --- (In reply to Ketmar Dark from comment #8) > in your case, however, CTFE engine should abort before even trying to > evaluate anything, as `void` is not a value suitable for array element. this > check is easier,

[Bug 178] cc1d locks up when specifying function instead of function pointer in an array

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=178 --- Comment #10 from Iain Buclaw --- I raised this upstream. https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14419 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

[Bug 178] cc1d locks up when specifying function instead of function pointer in an array

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=178 Johannes Pfau changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug 104] gcc-4.4.5 / D2.052 / cygwin: configure error for phobos/__libc_stack_end

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=104 Johannes Pfau changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug 150] compiler spits asm errors

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=150 Johannes Pfau changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug 113] Internal compiler problem on shared argument of final interface method: in toElem, at d/d-elem.cc:2521

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=113 Johannes Pfau changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED CC|

[Bug 172] Add support for GCC's weak attribute

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=172 Johannes Pfau changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug 161] GDC prevents backend from removing dead functions

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161 --- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw --- Isn't this what LTO/strip is used for? Actually, it's mark_needed in d-objfile.cc that forces it's write to objfile. It's needed for sure, otherwise phantom linker errors crop up in larger / heavy templated p

[Bug 81] ICE in gimple_expand_cfg

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=81 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug 27] Undefined interface functions when inheriting from two sources.

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug 148] gcc inline asm instruction template must be a constant char string regression

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=148 --- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw --- The regression is now fixed: https://github.com/D-Programming-GDC/GDC/commit/c76a734d3bf6db8120d4262fd2bba53c58174e29 I'm not sure about the enhancement, it requires that some semantic analysis that the parse

[Bug 179] New: invalid code generation with -O2 for method returning ref

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=179 Bug ID: 179 Summary: invalid code generation with -O2 for method returning ref Product: GDC Version: 4.9.x Hardware: x86 OS: Linux Status: NEW

[Bug 179] invalid code generation with -O2 for method returning ref

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=179 Ketmar Dark changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ket...@ketmar.no-ip.org --- Comment #1 fro

[Bug 179] invalid code generation with -O2 for method returning ref

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=179 --- Comment #2 from Ketmar Dark --- p.p.s. i'm using GCC 4.9.2 and the corresponding HEAD branch of gdc on x86. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

[Bug 179] invalid code generation with -O2 for method returning ref

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=179 --- Comment #3 from Ketmar Dark --- also, adding 'final' either to `ref RestrictedSignal!(string, int) valueChanged ()` or to `@property void value (int v)` fixes the code too. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug ch

[Bug 52] NRVO not implemented

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ket...@ketmar.no-ip.org --- Comment #10 fro

[Bug 179] invalid code generation with -O2 for method returning ref

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=179 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug 179] invalid code generation with -O2 for method returning ref

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=179 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|NEW Resolution|DUPLICATE

[Bug 179] invalid code generation with -O2 for method returning ref

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=179 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail b

[Bug 52] NRVO not implemented

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail be

[Bug 52] NRVO not implemented

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52 --- Comment #11 from Iain Buclaw --- I've got a fix for this in the works. Setting CALL_EXPR_RETURN_SLOT_OPT on the call returning NRVO is all we needed in the end. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

[Bug 52] NRVO not implemented

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52 --- Comment #12 from Ketmar Dark --- that's great! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

[Bug 52] NRVO not implemented

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug 52] NRVO not implemented

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52 --- Comment #14 from Iain Buclaw --- Also added testcase. https://github.com/D-Programming-GDC/GDC/commit/1a75aa6e2280272735237bf640931cdc26fe8350 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

[Bug 179] invalid code generation with -O2 for method returning ref

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=179 --- Comment #6 from Iain Buclaw --- Reduced: --- struct SignalImpl { @disable this(this); } struct RestrictedSignal { SignalImpl mImpl; void connect() { } } struct Signal { RestrictedSignal mRestricted; } class MyObject { S

[Bug 179] invalid code generation with -O2 for method returning ref

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=179 --- Comment #7 from Iain Buclaw --- There seems to be a key thing happening here: --- struct SignalImpl { @disable this(this); // SignalImpl is now non-POD } --- Because of this, TypeFunction::toCtype sets TREE_ADDRESSABLE on functions ret

[Bug 179] invalid code generation with -O2 for method returning ref

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=179 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug 180] New: DMD -O is faster than GDC -O3 for byte and short math

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=180 Bug ID: 180 Summary: DMD -O is faster than GDC -O3 for byte and short math Product: GDC Version: development Hardware: x86 OS: Linux Status: NEW Severity:

[Bug 180] DMD -O is faster than GDC -O3 for byte and short math

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=180 Ketmar Dark changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ket...@ketmar.no-ip.org Severity

[Bug 180] DMD -O is faster than GDC -O3 for byte and short math

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=180 Ketmar Dark changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #84 is|0 |1 obsolete|

[Bug 181] New: Missing tags for recent frontend merges

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=181 Bug ID: 181 Summary: Missing tags for recent frontend merges Product: GDC Version: development Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal

[Bug 181] Missing tags for recent frontend merges

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=181 --- Comment #2 from Dicebot --- Thanks! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

[Bug 181] Missing tags for recent frontend merges

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=181 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug 181] Missing tags for recent frontend merges

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=181 Johannes Pfau changed: What|Removed |Added CC||johannesp...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 fr

[Bug 181] Missing tags for recent frontend merges

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=181 --- Comment #4 from Dicebot --- Common approach is to have extra level of minor versions that "extends" the upstream (gcc in this case) and do smaller releases with those version bumps time to time. Changing tags is very bad. The very reason why

[Bug 181] Missing tags for recent frontend merges

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=181 --- Comment #5 from Johannes Pfau --- That's more or less what I thought. But there's no guiding principle when to make those minor version bumps. In the end we could bump with every commit, every second commit, every week, It's completely a

[Bug 181] Missing tags for recent frontend merges

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=181 --- Comment #6 from Dicebot --- It is completely up to you. It is simply way to tell packager "prefer this commit" and "consider upgrading gdc". I think two most important cases are frontend version bumps and branch freezes. -- You are receivin

[Bug 181] Missing tags for recent frontend merges

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=181 --- Comment #7 from Iain Buclaw --- Perhaps we better make the next commit "upgrade to 2.067.1" then. :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

[Bug 182] New: Travis CI is brocken

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=182 Bug ID: 182 Summary: Travis CI is brocken Product: GDC Version: 4.9.x Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: Normal

[Bug 183] New: ICE: in complete_ctor_at_level_p, at expr.c:5775 (ctor of struct containing union fails)

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=183 Bug ID: 183 Summary: ICE: in complete_ctor_at_level_p, at expr.c:5775 (ctor of struct containing union fails) Product: GDC Version: 4.9.x Hardware: All OS:

[Bug 181] Missing tags for recent frontend merges

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=181 --- Comment #8 from Iain Buclaw --- Kick-started "the big overhaul". https://github.com/D-Programming-GDC/GDC/pull/99 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

[Bug 161] GDC prevents backend from removing dead functions

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug 161] GDC prevents backend from removing dead functions

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161 --- Comment #3 from Iain Buclaw --- (In reply to Iain Buclaw from comment #2) > > When compiling the module, 'private bailOut' is would be seen as unused, and > so considered as a candidate for removal. However, external modules that > instanti

[Bug 157] using -O{1,2,3} together with -g causes ICE (seg fault)

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=157 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug 173] internal compiler error typeMerge

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=173 --- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw --- This looks like an upstream bug. https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14538 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

[Bug 152] ICE, CtorDeclaration::semantic(Scope*): Assertion `tf && tf->ty == Tfunction' failed

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=152 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug 175] immutable override - error in error reporting

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=175 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug 183] ICE: in complete_ctor_at_level_p, at expr.c:5775 (ctor of struct containing union fails)

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=183 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw

[Bug 173] internal compiler error typeMerge

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=173 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug 184] New: TypeInfo.name strings don't get put into separate sections when compiling with -fdata-sections

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=184 Bug ID: 184 Summary: TypeInfo.name strings don't get put into separate sections when compiling with -fdata-sections Product: GDC Version: development Hardware: All

[Bug 185] New: Wrong codegen is used for = expressions when there is a function as part of the rvalue.

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=185 Bug ID: 185 Summary: Wrong codegen is used for = expressions when there is a function as part of the rvalue. Product: GDC Version: 4.9.x Hardware: x86_64 OS

[Bug 185] Wrong codegen is used for = expressions when there is a function as part of the rvalue.

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=185 --- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw --- FYI, we enforce strict LTR. The rewrite that was observed in C seems to be as a result of one of the passes in const-fold.c executed by the front-end, and not as a result of the front-end explicitly righting i

[Bug 186] New: Struct with union of struct and size_t field gets wrong optimization if initialized on same line as declaration

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=186 Bug ID: 186 Summary: Struct with union of struct and size_t field gets wrong optimization if initialized on same line as declaration Product: GDC Version: 4.9.x

[Bug 187] New: Nested struct that has non-padded array does not initialize fields correctly when compiled with optimizations

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=187 Bug ID: 187 Summary: Nested struct that has non-padded array does not initialize fields correctly when compiled with optimizations Product: GDC Version: 4.9.x

[Bug 188] New: Optimized GDC with no-bounds-checking skips operations in foreach if given statically

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=188 Bug ID: 188 Summary: Optimized GDC with no-bounds-checking skips operations in foreach if given statically Product: GDC Version: 4.9.x Hardware: x86_64 OS:

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >