On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 18:58:50 UTC, UplinkCoder wrote:
Sorry I think i messed up with my github branches.
until i get it straightend out you can get my local working
source verbatim from
http://www42.zippyshare.com/v/4371099/file.html
I modified the sdc to produce 32bit code if the -m32
make that
I have now setup a repo with my 32bit sdc source.
https://github.com/UplinkCoder/sdc32-experimental
There are NO submodules I dump my source straight in there.
cloning it and calling make should be enough.
Hi,
We are happy to announce the release of 'dfuse', a high level D
language binding
for fuse (http://fuse.sourceforge.net). It supports libfuse =
2.8 and works on
both Linux and MacOS (osxfuse). You can find the project at:
https://github.com/facebook/dfuse
We at Facebook have been
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 17:05:25 UTC, David Soria Parra
wrote:
Hi,
We are happy to announce the release of 'dfuse', a high level D
language binding
for fuse (http://fuse.sourceforge.net). It supports libfuse =
2.8 and works on
both Linux and MacOS (osxfuse). You can find the project
On 7/30/14, 10:05 AM, David Soria Parra wrote:
Hi,
We are happy to announce the release of 'dfuse', a high level D language
binding
for fuse (http://fuse.sourceforge.net). It supports libfuse = 2.8 and
works on
both Linux and MacOS (osxfuse). You can find the project at:
Great to see more D contributions from Facebook ^_^
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 02:08:30 UTC, Andrew Godfrey wrote:
fyi, here's what I have so far.
I haven't yet added the cross-references we talked about at the
start of the thread. I'll be away for a few weeks soon, so
won't have much more time until after that.
I'm hoping this link is
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 05:55:58 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
I'm completely opposed to changing the official terminology.
Why?
What buys it, to have two terms slice and dynamic array if
they mean exactly the same thing?
Especially if we have two different things, the memory and the
J
On 28 Jul 2014 18:35, Sönke Ludwig digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Am 28.07.2014 18:04, schrieb w0rp:
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 10:27:02 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
Hi,
dlang.org isn't the only site being re-implemented using vibe.d -
GDC's homepage is now getting a UI update.
On 7/29/2014 10:53 PM, Jonathan Marler wrote:
I'm attempting to fix https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4831. I've been
debugging the optlink assembly and getting familiar with the code. I have a
couple questions though:
1. If I have any questions in the future about optlink who and
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 03:43:55 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/29/2014 2:47 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
There's a pretty negative article about disqus making the
rounds:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2c19of/your_users_deserve_better_than_disqus/
Since we're
Making dmd generate coff would make more sense.
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 06:54:52 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
The fundamental problem with fixing optlink is there is
essentially no test suite. This means that any fixes to it need
to be surgical - as little code modified as practical, and
pretty great care in doing it. Wholesale
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 03:32:50 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/29/2014 7:08 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
Of course version(assert) is a language feature. Always
double-check your claims.
It's even documented: http://dlang.org/version.html
You're right. My mistake. I'd forgotten about that.
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 22:07:42 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 07/29/2014 11:08 PM, Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?=
ola.fosheim.grostad+dl...@gmail.com wrote:
The best you can hope to have is partial correctness. Even
with a system
for formal verification.
Well, why would this be true?
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 03:32:50 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
I don't either. I still have no idea what the difference
between assume(i6) and assert(i6) is supposed to be.
assert:
is a runtime check of the condition.
is a debugging/correctness checking feature.
is used when the expression
On 30/07/2014 7:03 p.m., Kagamin wrote:
Making dmd generate coff would make more sense.
+1
Most of the code should already be present in dmd, which makes it far
crazier not to.
It looks like the easiest way to fix the bug is to change the
get_filename function to support non HPFS characters. I'm
guessing this was originally written to run exclusively on HPFS
systems? Is this tool still suppose to support HPFS file
systems? If so maybe we could add a runtime check
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 08:12:17 UTC, Rikki Cattermole
wrote:
On 30/07/2014 7:03 p.m., Kagamin wrote:
Making dmd generate coff would make more sense.
+1
Most of the code should already be present in dmd, which makes
it far crazier not to.
What makes it craziest is that there's a
On 30/07/2014 8:58 p.m., Joakim wrote:
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 08:12:17 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
On 30/07/2014 7:03 p.m., Kagamin wrote:
Making dmd generate coff would make more sense.
+1
Most of the code should already be present in dmd, which makes it far
crazier not to.
What
On 7/30/2014 12:54 AM, David Bregman wrote:
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 03:32:50 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
I don't either. I still have no idea what the difference between assume(i6)
and assert(i6) is supposed to be.
assert:
is a runtime check of the condition.
is a debugging/correctness
Walter Bright:
Data flow analysis can figure that example out.
Sorry, my mistake, what I am discussing about should not need
much flow analysis. Here x and y are immutable:
void main(in string[] args) {
import std.stdio, std.conv;
assert(args.length == 3);
immutable ubyte ux
On 7/30/2014 12:17 AM, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
ola.fosheim.grostad+dl...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
This is a complete misunderstanding of what assert is. Assert means the
expression must evaluate to true, if it does not, it's a program bug. This is
the case regardless of release mode or not.
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 09:06:11 UTC, Rikki Cattermole
wrote:
On 30/07/2014 8:58 p.m., Joakim wrote:
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 08:12:17 UTC, Rikki Cattermole
wrote:
On 30/07/2014 7:03 p.m., Kagamin wrote:
Making dmd generate coff would make more sense.
+1
Most of the code should
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 23:09:28 UTC, Robert burner Schadek
wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 06:09:25 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
4. Replace defaultLogger with theLog. Logger is a word, but
one that means lumberjack so it doesn't have the appropriate
semantics. The use is generally
On 30/07/2014 9:17 p.m., Joakim wrote:
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 09:06:11 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
On 30/07/2014 8:58 p.m., Joakim wrote:
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 08:12:17 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
On 30/07/2014 7:03 p.m., Kagamin wrote:
Making dmd generate coff would make
On 07/30/14 05:32, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
I still have no idea what the difference between assume(i6) and assert(i6)
is supposed to be.
if (!(i6)) assert(0); // With the difference that this `assert(0)` could be
omitted.
vs
assert(i6);
You've been suggesting
What about T[] is _not_ a dynamic array?
Now that I've done this exercise I can answer more crisply:
When T[] is an lvalue, it behaves like a reference, not a dynamic
array.
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 09:06:11 UTC, Rikki Cattermole
wrote:
If we obsoleted the OMF format output we would need to have a
free and distributed with PE-COFF linker.
GNU binutils should do.
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 09:13:56 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/30/2014 12:17 AM, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
ola.fosheim.grostad+dl...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
This is a complete misunderstanding of what assert is. Assert
means the expression must evaluate to true, if it does not,
it's a
Let's try to me more formal about it then.
assert(X) means: !(X) || bottom
assume(X) means: X
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 10:17:58 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
Let's try to me more formal about it then.
assert(X) means: !(X) || bottom
assume(X) means: X
Got that wrong (so much for correctness!):
assert(X) means: X || bottom
assume(X) means: X
Yes for inclusion into std.experimental
Here is a link to the original paper where C.A.R. Hoare
introduces assertions. Yes assert() in C is the same. The D
spec claims to provide C-style assertions. That means it should
abide to what is described in this paper:
http://sunnyday.mit.edu/16.355/Hoare-CACM-69.pdf
If not, call it
Artur Skawina via Digitalmars-d wrote in message
news:mailman.217.1406713015.16021.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
`assert` is for *verifying* assumptions. It must not allow them
to leak/escape. Otherwise a single not-100%-correct assert could
defeat critical runtime checks.
All you're
Marc Schütz wrote in message
news:igznybcggsqgfhmmy...@forum.dlang.org...
I don't see anything wrong with logger. A driver is something that
drives (a device), a logger is something that logs. Just log would be
ok, too. Both are in common use, and are terms that I would use
intuitively.
Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote in message
news:ilqxnvyqwfmcasxnb...@forum.dlang.org...
Here is a link to the original paper where C.A.R. Hoare introduces
assertions. Yes assert() in C is the same. The D spec claims to provide
C-style assertions. That means it should abide to what is described in
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 17:35:34 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
I'd just want to have a simple litmus test that prevents
std.experimental from becoming a dumping ground of unfinished
work. Consider:
Folks, here's std.experimental.acme. I think it's usable and
fairly stable but I'm sure
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 12:11:31 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
So you'll be happy if we call them D-style assertions?
Program verification has been at the core of CS for over 40
years. This is bachelor grade stuff. If you keep inventing your
own semantics for well-established terminology
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 21:01:07 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 17:34:39 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 17:22:38 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
(Davis also supports this point)
To avoid confusion, let me point out that this was me (i.e.,
David),
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 19:50:15 UTC, Wyatt wrote:
By the way, when you say staging I think of the Linux
kernel's definition of staging [1] for driver and filesystem
development. It's just a bit confusing. :) On the other hand,
I still think their rules for staging have some merit as an
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 09:17:05 UTC, Joakim wrote:
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 09:06:11 UTC, Rikki Cattermole
wrote:
On 30/07/2014 8:58 p.m., Joakim wrote:
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 08:12:17 UTC, Rikki Cattermole
wrote:
On 30/07/2014 7:03 p.m., Kagamin wrote:
Making dmd generate
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 09:12:56 UTC, bearophile wrote:
And assume() and assert() are two different things, used for
different purposes. Do not give the same name to two so
different features, if you want to keep a language sane.
Exactly. If you want to establish that the provided input
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 21:47:16 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Any thoughts?
Disqus sux :P
w0rp wrote in message news:sinwmhzuvhmevqtun...@forum.dlang.org...
I think it's important to ship with a linker without requiring any further
installation. One of the things that helped me to learn D was being able
to download DMD and run RDMD on Windows without installing anything else.
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 00:40:09 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:
Andrei did say forum integration would be prefered back when
you mentioned it[1]. The more I think about this though the
more I think you are right that wiki would be superior to
comments but I share your concern for wiki
Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote in message
news:umhhokwldfouodjhv...@forum.dlang.org...
Program verification has been at the core of CS for over 40 years. This is
bachelor grade stuff. If you keep inventing your own semantics for
well-established terminology then nobody will take D seriously.
It
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 19:35:31 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
To have an assert despite -release, you can do things like:
assert(exp); = if (!exp) assert(0);
I generally leave asserts in for released code in my projects.
You honestly don't smell a problem here? There is a default
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote in message news:lr8tcf$l1t$1...@digitalmars.com...
Fancier: exp || assert(0) is still an expression.
Fancier is not always better.
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 13:14:11 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
For instance, if assert(false) is proven reachable then it
means either:
1. the specification is inconsistent/contradictory (thus wrong)
2. the program has been proved incorrect
The compiler should then refuse to generate code.
Walter Bright wrote in message news:lr8t23$kof$1...@digitalmars.com...
To have an assert despite -release, you can do things like:
assert(exp); = if (!exp) assert(0);
dmd does currently implement it that way, but the spec explicitly says the
compiler may assume it is unreachable and
On 07/30/14 13:56, Daniel Murphy via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Artur Skawina via Digitalmars-d wrote in message
news:mailman.217.1406713015.16021.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
`assert` is for *verifying* assumptions. It must not allow them
to leak/escape. Otherwise a single not-100%-correct
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 13:10:35 UTC, Wyatt wrote:
Serious question: what exactly is supplemental documentation?
In my view, if it's good enough to be considered
documentation, it belongs in the documentation. Anything else
is just pussy-footing around.
For example articles that
Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote in message
news:lzrtpkfytndikacwe...@forum.dlang.org...
It follows the law of logic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoare_logic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositional_calculus
You're missing the point - we don't have to follow those definitions. Maybe
we
Artur Skawina via Digitalmars-d wrote in message
news:mailman.227.1406728603.16021.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
D - the language that redefines commonly used and universally
understood terms and concepts?
Yes, see pure for another example. D - the pragmatic language
not that it can't
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 12:01:21 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
Marc Schütz wrote in message
news:igznybcggsqgfhmmy...@forum.dlang.org...
I don't see anything wrong with logger. A driver is
something that drives (a device), a logger is something that
logs. Just log would be ok, too. Both
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 14:11:24 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
If used wrong it will do the wrong thing. This is already true
of compiler optimizations. The optimizer may turn invalid code
into security problems - have a google around and you'll find
some examples.
I think the point
On 7/30/14, 4:17 AM, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
ola.fosheim.grostad+dl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 03:32:50 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/29/2014 7:08 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
Of course version(assert) is a language feature. Always double-check
your claims.
It's even documented:
Ary Borenszweig wrote in message news:lravtd$2siq$1...@digitalmars.com...
Now, if you compile in release mode, according to Walter, all the
asserts are gone (which, as a side note, is something I don't like: in
every case it should throw an AssertError). So the question is: can the
compiler
Wyatt wrote in message news:wpyvrdoofziktwqkz...@forum.dlang.org...
I think the point here is that usually, when the optimiser changes the
semantics of valid code, it's considered a bug in the optimiser.
s/usually/always/
The thing is, code containing an assertion that is not always true is
Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote in message
news:lr8r7a$j7v$1...@digitalmars.com...
On 7/29/14, 12:01 PM, Sean Kelly wrote:
Frankly, if Dub is bundled with D, I don't see any reason for
std.experimental to exist. Those two ideas just seemed to
develop in parallel.
The
On 7/30/14, 12:54 AM, David Bregman wrote:
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 03:32:50 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
I don't either. I still have no idea what the difference between
assume(i6) and assert(i6) is supposed to be.
assert:
is a runtime check of the condition.
is a debugging/correctness
On 7/30/14, 2:22 AM, Marc Schütz schue...@gmx.net wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 23:09:28 UTC, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 06:09:25 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
4. Replace defaultLogger with theLog. Logger is a word, but one
that means lumberjack so it
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 14:25:49 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
On a note less related to bikes, could anybody explain to me
why a name is something natural to a logger? In other words,
why does it make sense to complicate the entire design with
this instead of just using either a set (in
On 7/30/14, 4:56 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
Artur Skawina via Digitalmars-d wrote in message
news:mailman.217.1406713015.16021.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
`assert` is for *verifying* assumptions. It must not allow them
to leak/escape. Otherwise a single not-100%-correct assert could
defeat
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 13:10:35 UTC, Wyatt wrote:
Serious question: what exactly is supplemental documentation?
In my view, if it's good enough to be considered
documentation, it belongs in the documentation.
It belongs, but it's not there.
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 14:51:34 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Also, it's unclear to me what the optimizer would be supposed
to do if an assumption turns out to be false.
Bad... bad... things...
On 7/30/14, 6:43 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote in message
news:lr8tcf$l1t$1...@digitalmars.com...
Fancier: exp || assert(0) is still an expression.
Fancier is not always better.
It's better when you need an expression. -- Andrei
On 7/30/14, 5:54 AM, Dicebot wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 21:47:16 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Any thoughts?
Disqus sux :P
Well whenever I see something like that I assume it's followed by ...
and I volunteer to write a better system for our community! -- Andrei
On 7/30/14, 7:55 AM, Tofu Ninja wrote:
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 14:51:34 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Also, it's unclear to me what the optimizer would be supposed to do if
an assumption turns out to be false.
Bad... bad... things...
So then I see nothing that assume can do that
On 7/30/14, 8:06 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 7/30/14, 5:54 AM, Dicebot wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 21:47:16 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Any thoughts?
Disqus sux :P
Well whenever I see something like that I assume it's followed by ...
and I volunteer to write a better
On 7/30/14, 11:44 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
Ary Borenszweig wrote in message news:lravtd$2siq$1...@digitalmars.com...
Now, if you compile in release mode, according to Walter, all the
asserts are gone (which, as a side note, is something I don't like:
in every case it should throw an
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote in message
news:lrb1ru$30ag$1...@digitalmars.com...
It's better when you need an expression. -- Andrei
No! That's the kind of thinking that leads to using the comma
operator
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 14:25:49 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
On a note less related to bikes, could anybody explain to me
why a name is something natural to a logger? In other words,
why does it make sense to complicate the entire design with
this instead of just using either a set (in
Ary Borenszweig wrote in message news:lrb21p$30lf$1...@digitalmars.com...
He's asking for assert to mean 'check this condition' and assume to mean
'optimize as if this is a mathematical identity'.
And how is that different if instead of:
if (x != 3) assert(0);
you write:
assume(x != 3);
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 15:07:18 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 7/30/14, 5:54 AM, Dicebot wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 21:47:16 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Any thoughts?
Disqus sux :P
Well whenever I see something like that I assume it's followed
by ... and I volunteer
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 13:03:30 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
w0rp wrote in message
news:sinwmhzuvhmevqtun...@forum.dlang.org...
I think it's important to ship with a linker without requiring
any further installation. One of the things that helped me to
learn D was being able to download
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 14:59:38 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Such logic doesn't apply to vocabularies.
According to my vocabulary, a logger is something that logs.
Didn't hear about irater, and messer sounds like a German word.
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote in message
news:lrb21u$30jl$2...@digitalmars.com...
Well whenever I see something like that I assume it's followed by ...
and I volunteer to write a better system for our community! -- Andrei
Wow. I just used assume! -- Andrei
Unfortunately the compiler has
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 15:21:12 UTC, Dragos Carp wrote:
Now that I see several comments here seeking for certain
stability even in std.experimental and can understand why
later exposure can be a good thing. That, however, makes me
even more convinced that experimental is a terrible name
Now that I see several comments here seeking for certain
stability even in std.experimental and can understand why later
exposure can be a good thing. That, however, makes me even more
convinced that experimental is a terrible name for that
package and we are using it purely as staging are
On 07/30/2014 09:22 AM, Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?=
ola.fosheim.grostad+dl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 22:07:42 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 07/29/2014 11:08 PM, Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?=
ola.fosheim.grostad+dl...@gmail.com wrote:
The best you can hope to
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote in message
news:lrb20i$30jl$1...@digitalmars.com...
So then I see nothing that assume can do that assert can't. -- Andrei
assume can avoid confusing people that think D's assert means something it
doesn't.
w0rp wrote in message news:vnaffnibgvtmqeuhz...@forum.dlang.org...
I didn't know about ylink. The prospect of having a free software linker
for D on Win32 written in D does sound attractive. I assume it would be a
lot of work to make it acceptable for usage.
I would estimate it's a smaller
Random guy here. I think the redesign is good. Populating the On
This Page box with the function, enum etc. names would be nice.
Preserving some form of site/page link navigation in the narrow
mode is essential, be it switching to boxes at the top/bottom of
the page or minimizing/maximizing
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 08:12:20AM -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On 7/30/14, 7:55 AM, Tofu Ninja wrote:
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 14:51:34 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Also, it's unclear to me what the optimizer would be supposed to do
if an assumption turns out
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 14:55:48 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 14:51:34 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Also, it's unclear to me what the optimizer would be supposed
to do if an assumption turns out to be false.
Bad... bad... things...
That is the main
Timon Gehr wrote in message news:lrb2o9$314b$1...@digitalmars.com...
Because there is no way you can prove say OpenGL drivers to be correct.
They are a black box provided by the execution environment.
I see. (Though I secretly still dare to hope for verified OpenGL drivers,
or something
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 15:24:22 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 15:21:12 UTC, Dragos Carp wrote:
As far as I recall, there was extensive bike-shedding about
this a while back. The decision (which I support) was to go
with std.experimental,
Sorry, probably
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 15:24:57 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
I see. (Though I secretly still dare to hope for verified
OpenGL drivers, or something analogous: it is not completely
out of reach theoretically; the machine can be given a quite
precise formal specification.)
There is literally
On 28 July 2014 19:08, w0rp via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 17:31:49 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
Am 28.07.2014 18:04, schrieb w0rp:
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 10:27:02 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
Hi,
dlang.org isn't the only site being
Tofu Ninja wrote in message news:dtjqnyucskwnqjvks...@forum.dlang.org...
Question?
If an if condition throws or returns in its body is it ok for the
optimizer to 'assume' that the condition is false after and make
optimizations for it? If so then every one complaining that assert gets
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 15:24:22 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
The decision (which I support) was to go with std.experimental,
as it makes it clear that there are no API stability guarantees
..and at the same time you do want to require the very same
stability guarantees :)
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 14:51:34 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
If assert degenerates to assume in release mode, any bugs in
the program
could potentially cause a lot more brittleness and
unexpected/undefined
behavior than they otherwise would have. In particular, code
generation
based
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 15:49:33 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
Tofu Ninja wrote in message
news:dtjqnyucskwnqjvks...@forum.dlang.org...
Question?
If an if condition throws or returns in its body is it ok for
the optimizer to 'assume' that the condition is false after
and make
On 30 July 2014 16:51, Iain Buclaw ibuc...@gdcproject.org wrote:
On 28 July 2014 19:08, w0rp via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 17:31:49 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
Am 28.07.2014 18:04, schrieb w0rp:
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 10:27:02 UTC, Iain
On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 15:12:58 UTC, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
On 7/30/14, 11:44 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
Ary Borenszweig wrote in message
news:lravtd$2siq$1...@digitalmars.com...
Now, if you compile in release mode, according to Walter, all
the
asserts are gone (which, as a side note,
On 07/30/2014 05:33 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
Timon Gehr wrote in message news:lrb2o9$314b$1...@digitalmars.com...
Because there is no way you can prove say OpenGL drivers to be correct.
They are a black box provided by the execution environment.
I see. (Though I secretly still dare to hope
On 7/30/2014 7:51 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Also, it's unclear to me what the optimizer would be supposed to do if an
assumption turns out to be false.
The program is no longer valid at that point.
Tofu Ninja wrote in message news:nwudcquzsuyrrlawx...@forum.dlang.org...
Ok so what is sounds like, is that assert is really what every one claims
assume is and enforce is what every one claims assert is...
Does it actually check the condition is true?
theoretical assert: in debug mode
D's
1 - 100 of 343 matches
Mail list logo
