On Sunday, 9 October 2016 at 13:40:14 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
How about we just implement AST macros and be done with it :)
Walter would rather die. Then see ast-macros in D.
I must say they would probably be worse then templates, in
regards of compile-time bloating.
On Tuesday, 11 October 2016 at 02:48:22 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
That looks good. I'm just worried about the jump forward -
ideally the case c < 127 would simply entail a quick return. I
tried a fix, but it didn't do what I wanted in ldc. We
shouldn't assert(0) if wrong - just skip one
On Thursday, 27 October 2016 at 04:39:03 UTC, mogu wrote:
On Thursday, 27 October 2016 at 04:33:30 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Thursday, 27 October 2016 at 02:36:13 UTC, Stefam Koch
wrote:
Trivial.
Fix is comeing.
Okay it was less trivial then it should have been.
Great job gcc.
On Thursday, 27 October 2016 at 02:36:13 UTC, Stefam Koch wrote:
Trivial.
Fix is comeing.
Okay it was less trivial then it should have been.
Great job gcc.
On Thursday, 27 October 2016 at 05:15:26 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Thursday, 27 October 2016 at 04:41:38 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Thursday, 27 October 2016 at 04:39:03 UTC, mogu wrote:
On Thursday, 27 October 2016 at 04:33:30 UTC, Stefan Koch
wrote:
On Thursday, 27 October 2016 at 02:36:13
On Thursday, 27 October 2016 at 19:59:09 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
On 10/27/16 3:49 PM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
http://www.toodarkpark.org/computers/humor/shoot-self-in-foot.html
Some entries for reference:
C
- You shoot yourself in the foot.
- You shoot yourself in the foot and then
On Thursday, 27 October 2016 at 23:49:49 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Thursday, 27 October 2016 at 05:25:49 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6215
PR is open.
Pending review and merge.
Although if you ask me this is a no-brainer.
It's now merged, thanks Stefan.
No
On Monday, 7 November 2016 at 21:45:42 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Monday, 7 November 2016 at 20:23:37 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
Since D is a systems programming language, wouldn't the user
want to have control over this?
It's just another optimisation in a long list of optimisations
that
On Monday, 7 November 2016 at 04:32:52 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Monday, 7 November 2016 at 03:33:47 UTC, Meta wrote:
Hello Walter,
I'm currently working on a DIP on the topic of either removing
or replacing the `body` keyword in D's contract programming
syntax. I've found that the best
On Saturday, 5 November 2016 at 20:57:06 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 11/4/16 9:21 PM, Stefan Koch wrote:
I thought about it some more, and decided that I will replace
the old
interpreter completely in the long run.
However in order to get something release before 2017, I have
to rely
On Sunday, 6 November 2016 at 15:31:24 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
Phobos and druntime unittests do compile now.
After the ability for returning errors is added all unitests
will be passed. (Most likely if there are not more bugs inside
the engine)
I just have just implemented the ability to
Back to CTFE.
The 64Bit bug is fixed.
And now there is one bailout-line less.
I am onto the next bug.
Let's hunt them all down!
On Wednesday, 9 November 2016 at 05:00:28 UTC, Shachar Shemesh
wrote:
On 08/11/16 17:41, Kagamin wrote:
no
Is this officially declared in the policy? Should I open an
issue?
Shachar
Please open an issue.
On Tuesday, 8 November 2016 at 21:56:32 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
Back to CTFE.
The 64Bit bug is fixed.
And now there is one bailout-line less.
I am onto the next bug.
Let's hunt them all down!
More 64bit bugs appeared that were shadowed by the one I fixed.
Also a new bugs related to labeled
After the bad news now a bit of good news.
I just finished the strCat algorithm;
The reason this took so much time is because of the
representation the heap has in the elevator.
it is a uint[] meaning you are getting into trouble with offsets
if the first string is not a multiple of 4
On Thursday, 10 November 2016 at 04:22:10 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
On 11/08/2016 11:40 PM, Chris Wright wrote:
On Tue, 08 Nov 2016 11:44:50 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
I really wish Google would take that to heart. They seem to
make a habit
of ripping things out *before* having
On Monday, 7 November 2016 at 23:19:18 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Monday, 7 November 2016 at 22:46:57 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Monday, 7 November 2016 at 21:45:42 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Monday, 7 November 2016 at 20:23:37 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
Since D is a systems programming
On Monday, 7 November 2016 at 14:13:04 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Monday, 7 November 2016 at 10:02:37 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Sunday, 6 November 2016 at 22:07:05 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Sunday, 6 November 2016 at 15:31:24 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
Phobos and druntime unittests do compile
On Thursday, 10 November 2016 at 20:15:49 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Thursday, November 10, 2016 18:40:03 Stefan Koch via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Thursday, 10 November 2016 at 01:17:48 UTC, Stefan Koch
wrote:
> After the bad news now a bit of good news.
> I just finished the
On Thursday, 10 November 2016 at 01:17:48 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
After the bad news now a bit of good news.
I just finished the strCat algorithm;
[...]
As expected this code is slightly wrong and will fail on the
offset == 3 case.
It will need a little bit of tinkering until it's ready to
On Friday, 4 November 2016 at 10:59:25 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
In this case better make sure to remove the resulting dead code
from the old interpreter, otherwise it will become and
unmaintainable mess in the long run.
If you ask me the old interpreter is already an unmaintainble
mess.
It
On Saturday, 5 November 2016 at 03:01:48 UTC, ketmar wrote:
On Friday, 4 November 2016 at 10:59:25 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
In this case better make sure to remove the resulting dead
code from the old interpreter, otherwise it will become and
unmaintainable mess in the long run.
interpreter
On Sunday, 6 November 2016 at 22:07:05 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Sunday, 6 November 2016 at 15:31:24 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
Phobos and druntime unittests do compile now.
After the ability for returning errors is added all unitests
will be passed. (Most likely if there are not more bugs
On Monday, 7 November 2016 at 10:02:37 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Sunday, 6 November 2016 at 22:07:05 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Sunday, 6 November 2016 at 15:31:24 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
Phobos and druntime unittests do compile now.
After the ability for returning errors is added all
On Monday, 10 October 2016 at 15:17:05 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Monday, 10 October 2016 at 03:55:17 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Oh, forgot to mention: the initial/short path should only
check for ASCII, i.e. c < 0x80. -- Andrei
Since in this case stability of min is concern, you can
On Friday, 14 October 2016 at 04:44:46 UTC, Patrick Schluter
wrote:
core.hints
short and simple
core.hints ?
That sounds to weak.
If I tell the compiler to group function a and function b
together and position them as close as possible to each other it
damn well better do it.
Because If I
On Friday, 14 October 2016 at 13:13:16 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5051 -- Andrei
I have been working on this.
What this amounts to is an AST-writeout using the HdrGen.
This will affect the code in so far as it will be lowerd my the
dmd frontend.
On Friday, 14 October 2016 at 18:02:24 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 10/14/16 12:38 PM, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Friday, 14 October 2016 at 13:13:16 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5051 -- Andrei
I have been working on this.
What this amounts to is
On Friday, 21 October 2016 at 13:18:19 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
On Friday, 21 October 2016 at 12:34:58 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
[...]
I am the one who raised the question. I am n00b when it comes
to D language (I just started reading about it a couple of days
ago) and I tried the above
On Friday, 21 October 2016 at 12:34:58 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
I got a question about what happens with this code:
int j;
for({j=2; int d = 3; } j+d<7; {j++; d++;}) {
}
[...]
We could restrict the initialze part to assignments only. But I
am unsure of the implications.
How did you
On Friday, 21 October 2016 at 13:42:49 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Friday, 21 October 2016 at 13:33:26 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
It does create a lambda?
Hmm that should not happen.
I think deprecating `{ lambda }` is really the way to go. It'd
fix this as well at that other FAQ at pretty low
To more bullet points cross the border from unsupported to
supported.
- assignment to static array cells
- long ulong arithmetic.
However there is a a bug inside the code that does
bounds-checking for array assignment.
In rare cases it can trigger a out-bounds-error on newly created
arrays.
On Monday, 14 November 2016 at 05:27:15 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
Assignment to Array.length works now :)
the following code :
uint[] makeArr()
{
uint[] arr;
arr.length = 5;
return arr;
}
pragma(msg, makeArr());
results in :
CTFE_DEBUG_MESSAGE : building Array of Length 5
[0u, 0u,
On Monday, 14 November 2016 at 07:57:20 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Monday, 14 November 2016 at 05:27:15 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
Assignment to Array.length works now :)
the following code :
uint[] makeArr()
{
uint[] arr;
arr.length = 5;
return arr;
}
pragma(msg, makeArr());
On Wednesday, 23 November 2016 at 07:11:56 UTC, ANtlord wrote:
On Saturday, 12 November 2016 at 10:26:53 UTC, Stefan Koch
wrote:
Hi Guys,
I have written a small utility called dmd-ast-tool.
It can be used to quickly generate boilerplate code for
dmd-ast-visitors.
Originally it was only
On Monday, 21 November 2016 at 19:16:07 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Monday, 21 November 2016 at 01:20:06 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
This doesn't affect installation. But nothing link anymore.
Ho Hi !
The .deb do NOT work. Can we get an hotfix out there ?
Which deb does not work where ?
I will try
On Monday, 21 November 2016 at 19:11:58 UTC, Anonymouse wrote:
On Sunday, 20 November 2016 at 09:02:30 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Saturday, 19 November 2016 at 11:22:18 UTC, Stefan Koch
wrote:
[...]
I would buy you a beer but the Internet is in the way.
I appreciate the offer.
During the
On Monday, 21 November 2016 at 19:19:50 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Monday, 21 November 2016 at 19:11:58 UTC, Anonymouse wrote:
On Sunday, 20 November 2016 at 09:02:30 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Saturday, 19 November 2016 at 11:22:18 UTC, Stefan Koch
wrote:
[...]
I would buy you a beer but
On Thursday, 24 November 2016 at 17:16:33 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
I have just discovered breakage of basic operations.
I will need regression tests, some time soon.
Hey Guys,
I fixed the regression.
(At the expense, of removing more optimization)
Work continues on struct and (dynamic) array
On Friday, 25 November 2016 at 08:46:24 UTC, rikki cattermole
wrote:
On 25/11/2016 8:27 PM, unDEFER wrote:
Why you consider only 2 options?
Use "do {} while (true);" :-)
The condition only executes after a single iteration.
So it is not the same code flow.
For an the usecase infinite-loop
On Friday, 25 November 2016 at 10:14:46 UTC, Satoshi wrote:
Simply, it should be replaced by:
void safeFunc() @safe {
unsafe {
auto vi = doUnsafeCall();
}
}
@trusted functions are prohibited by d-idiom (so I don't know
why are still in D).
So, when I need to create a simple
On Friday, 25 November 2016 at 09:14:16 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Thursday, 24 November 2016 at 17:16:33 UTC, Stefan Koch
wrote:
I have just discovered breakage of basic operations.
I will need regression tests, some time soon.
Hey Guys,
I fixed the regression.
(At the expense, of removing
On Friday, 25 November 2016 at 10:53:50 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Friday, 25 November 2016 at 09:14:16 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Thursday, 24 November 2016 at 17:16:33 UTC, Stefan Koch
wrote:
I have just discovered breakage of basic operations.
I will need regression tests, some time soon.
I have just discovered breakage of basic operations.
I will need regression tests, some time soon.
On Tuesday, 15 November 2016 at 15:28:14 UTC, ketmar wrote:
if it will be independent utility -- yes. dmdfe part -- no.
It would relay on the parser of the dmdfe, and parts of dmd's
semantic analysis.
DMD will be much nicer to work with the facility envision.
As I see it there is little
On Tuesday, 15 November 2016 at 16:50:47 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
p you dont get the point.
The point is when an IDE message leads you to this:
http://imgur.com/a/6zLHU
I really don't get it.
What is actionable about that metric ?
On Tuesday, 15 November 2016 at 16:59:49 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On 11/15/2016 06:46 PM, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 November 2016 at 16:39:22 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
[ ]
But I'd sincerely advise against any ad-hoc solution that is
built
into DMD itself.
It seems I did not clearly state
On Tuesday, 15 November 2016 at 16:28:30 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 November 2016 at 14:45:29 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
Hi Guys,
I was wondering how much interest in static analysis exists in
this community .
DMD already has rudimentary support for these kinds of things.
cyclic
On Tuesday, 15 November 2016 at 16:39:22 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
[ ]
But I'd sincerely advise against any ad-hoc solution that is
built into DMD itself.
It seems I did not clearly state this.
I mean to provide the general plumbing that is needed for the
dmd-fe,
to utilize it for static
On Thursday, 17 November 2016 at 08:39:57 UTC, Andrea Fontana
wrote:
I follow this thread every day. I hope you'll write an article
on dlang blog when the work will be completed :)
Mike Parker is going to write an short article about it based on
information I gave him via mail.
I am
On Thursday, 17 November 2016 at 03:10:33 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
Regardless, optional parens are one of those features that
seems really nice in some situations and gets really annoying
in others, and you hit one of those spots where it's annoying.
I would be feasible to only recognize
On Wednesday, 16 November 2016 at 14:44:06 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
And Again a bit of bad news.
Due to problems in the lowering of function arguments the
implementation of strcat is delayed again.
The bug does not affect strings.
Since strings are not build up out of multiple
On Thursday, 17 November 2016 at 02:15:49 UTC, Meta wrote:
On Thursday, 17 November 2016 at 02:14:43 UTC, Meta wrote:
On Thursday, 17 November 2016 at 01:48:51 UTC, Jonathan M
Davis wrote:
Well, you _can't_ return a function. You could return a
function pointer or a delegate, but not a
On Wednesday, 16 November 2016 at 09:11:50 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
I want to get there eventually. :)
Unfortunately I haven't had a lot of time to spend on this
lately. Also, DMD 2.060 has quite many annoying bugs that slow
down development.
Sounds to me like you should rewrite the compiler
Hi Guys,
I was wondering how much interest in static analysis exists in
this community .
DMD already has rudimentary support for these kinds of things.
On Tuesday, 15 November 2016 at 14:45:29 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
Hi Guys,
I was wondering how much interest in static analysis exists in
this community .
DMD already has rudimentary support for these kinds of things.
Whoops I accidentally pressed enter too soon.
I am currently working on
On Wednesday, 16 November 2016 at 09:22:01 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 November 2016 at 23:46:51 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
I suspect that somewhere the heapPtr is not bumped or the
length is not set correctly.
Indeed the length was not set on a code-path meant for
resizeing.
The
On Wednesday, 16 November 2016 at 09:45:24 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
Here is a small demostration of the performance increase :
[root@localhost dmd]# time src/dmd -c testSettingArrayLength.d
> x 2> x
real0m0.199s
user0m0.180s
sys 0m0.017s
[root@localhost dmd]# time src/dmd -c
Here is a small demostration of the performance increase :
[root@localhost dmd]# time src/dmd -c testSettingArrayLength.d >
x 2> x
real0m0.199s
user0m0.180s
sys 0m0.017s
[root@localhost dmd]# time src/dmd -c testSettingArrayLength.d
-bc-ctfe > x 2> x
real0m0.072s
user
On Tuesday, 15 November 2016 at 23:46:51 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 November 2016 at 22:50:49 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 November 2016 at 01:35:42 UTC, Stefan Koch
wrote:
However there is a a bug inside the code that does
bounds-checking for array assignment.
In rare
On Wednesday, 16 November 2016 at 10:45:54 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On 11/15/2016 07:05 PM, Stefan Koch wrote:
[...]
It's a compiler frontend.
Very good observation :P
I cannot see any other purposes then code-analysis and
code-transformation. Regarding Transformations I wanted to
write a
On Wednesday, 16 November 2016 at 10:07:06 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
A more accurate breakdown :
Initializing Heap: 18.6 ms
Generating Bytecode:1.2 ms
Executing Bytecode:13.2 ms
Converting to CTFE-EXp: 9.1 ms
For a second execution of the same function with the same
arguments
On Wednesday, 16 November 2016 at 10:25:30 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
First Execution (cold cache) :
Initializing Heap: 17.4 ms
Generating Bytecode:0.7 ms
Executing Bytecode: 5.3 ms
Converting to CTFE-EXp: 5.1 ms
Second run (warmer cache) :
Initializing Heap: 16.9 ms
Generating
On Wednesday, 16 November 2016 at 14:06:16 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 November 2016 at 14:45:29 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
Hi Guys,
I was wondering how much interest in static analysis exists in
this community .
DMD already has rudimentary support for these kinds of things.
By the
On Thursday, 17 November 2016 at 09:19:57 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Thursday, 17 November 2016 at 08:39:57 UTC, Andrea Fontana
wrote:
I follow this thread every day. I hope you'll write an article
on dlang blog when the work will be completed :)
Mike Parker is going to write an short
On Friday, 18 November 2016 at 15:09:02 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
I just fixed the bug with multiple ArraysLiterals as arguments.
This means the following code will now compile and properly
execute:
uint Sum3Arrays (uint[] a1, uint[] a2, uint[] a3)
{
uint result;
for(int i; i != a1.length;
On Friday, 18 November 2016 at 17:21:10 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Friday, 18 November 2016 at 15:09:02 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
I just fixed the bug with multiple ArraysLiterals as arguments.
This means the following code will now compile and properly
execute:
uint Sum3Arrays (uint[] a1,
On Tuesday, 15 November 2016 at 11:31:01 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
You may want to consider adding it to
https://github.com/dlang/tools
Yes, I will make it a little more user friendly, then I'll raise
a PR.
Another small update.
I got rid of the heapClearing overhead.
By using ddmds allocator.
Because of that I was able to shave off 20ms overhead.
On Saturday, 19 November 2016 at 09:42:33 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
Another small update.
I got rid of the heapClearing overhead.
By using ddmds allocator.
Because of that I was able to shave off 20ms overhead.
Allocation of dynamic arrays works :)
The following code will work just fine with the
On Friday, 18 November 2016 at 12:50:30 UTC, Rainer Schuetze
wrote:
On 18.11.2016 12:39, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Friday, 18 November 2016 at 11:37:40 UTC, Rainer Schuetze
wrote:
On 18.11.2016 11:33, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Friday, 18 November 2016 at 10:18:21 UTC, Rainer Schuetze
wrote:
On Thursday, 17 November 2016 at 14:10:01 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
Lucia is working on
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16683 which shows good
promise in cleaning the cobwebs around Typeinfo. She looked
into matters and figured she needs to have TypeidExp.semantic()
return the
On Thursday, 17 November 2016 at 14:11:50 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Thursday, 17 November 2016 at 14:10:01 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
auto tidSymbol = new Dsymbol(new
Identifier("__typeidImplT"));
Andrei
I am looking into it.
DSymbol is an abstract class.
It is not meant to
On Friday, 18 November 2016 at 11:37:40 UTC, Rainer Schuetze
wrote:
On 18.11.2016 11:33, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Friday, 18 November 2016 at 10:18:21 UTC, Rainer Schuetze
wrote:
I'm looking for candidates that might replace the semantic
engine in
Visual D, as D_Parser is unlikely to be
On Thursday, 17 November 2016 at 22:46:33 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 17.11.2016 22:41, John Colvin wrote:
On Thursday, 17 November 2016 at 21:39:15 UTC, Timon Gehr
wrote:
On 17.11.2016 03:52, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 November 2016 at 09:11:50 UTC, Timon Gehr
wrote:
I want to get
On Friday, 18 November 2016 at 10:18:21 UTC, Rainer Schuetze
wrote:
I'm looking for candidates that might replace the semantic
engine in Visual D, as D_Parser is unlikely to be developed
further at the moment.
Hmm I plan on cleaning DDMD up a bunch.
Any chance you could use the DDMD
On Friday, 18 November 2016 at 10:43:09 UTC, unDEFER wrote:
[...]
You have to link with the cygwin.dll to get the symbols.
That is not not done by default I presume.
On Saturday, 12 November 2016 at 10:26:53 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
Hi Guys,
I have written a small utility called dmd-ast-tool.
It can be used to quickly generate boilerplate code for
dmd-ast-visitors.
Originally it was only written for my personal use, it used to
work with a handwritten
On Thursday, 10 November 2016 at 20:51:01 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Thursday, 10 November 2016 at 20:15:49 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Thursday, November 10, 2016 18:40:03 Stefan Koch via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Thursday, 10 November 2016 at 01:17:48 UTC, Stefan Koch
wrote:
> Af
On Saturday, 19 November 2016 at 11:22:18 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Saturday, 19 November 2016 at 09:42:33 UTC, Stefan Koch
wrote:
Another small update.
I got rid of the heapClearing overhead.
By using ddmds allocator.
Because of that I was able to shave off 20ms overhead.
Allocation of
On Monday, 21 November 2016 at 10:41:27 UTC, Johan Engelen wrote:
In LLVMweekly [1], I read the following:
"You may be be interested, amazed, and/or horrified to learn of
constexpr-8cc [2]. It provides a compile-time C compiler
implemented as C++14 constant expressions."
The constexpr
On Sunday, 20 November 2016 at 16:27:24 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Sunday, 20 November 2016 at 15:37:50 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
Furthermore I need to extend my bc_tests. to make sure the
interpretation is the same.
Such that this bug cannot happen again.
before.
I have extended my test-suite
On Sunday, 20 November 2016 at 09:02:30 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Saturday, 19 November 2016 at 11:22:18 UTC, Stefan Koch
wrote:
On Saturday, 19 November 2016 at 09:42:33 UTC, Stefan Koch
wrote:
Another small update.
I got rid of the heapClearing overhead.
By using ddmds allocator.
Because of
On Sunday, 20 November 2016 at 15:37:50 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
Furthermore I need to extend my bc_tests. to make sure the
interpretation is the same.
Such that this bug cannot happen again.
I have extended my test-suite to test this case.
It is crucial that the c backend and the interpreter
On Monday, 21 November 2016 at 10:51:01 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
When writing do { ... } while(true/false)
The IR generated would tell the interpreter to evaluate the
condition flag.
This Bug is now fixed.
At the same time a superfluous jump could be eliminated.
I have also fixed another bug
On Tuesday, 15 November 2016 at 22:50:49 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 November 2016 at 01:35:42 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
However there is a a bug inside the code that does
bounds-checking for array assignment.
In rare cases it can trigger a out-bounds-error on newly
created arrays.
Hi Guys,
I have written a small utility called dmd-ast-tool.
It can be used to quickly generate boilerplate code for
dmd-ast-visitors.
Originally it was only written for my personal use, it used to
work with a handwritten text-file representing dmds ast class
hierarchy.
However I recently
Assignment to Array.length works now :)
the following code :
uint[] makeArr()
{
uint[] arr;
arr.length = 5;
return arr;
}
pragma(msg, makeArr());
results in :
CTFE_DEBUG_MESSAGE : building Array of Length 5
[0u, 0u, 0u, 0u, 0u]
On Friday, 21 October 2016 at 02:16:44 UTC, Chris M. wrote:
So I know you can do some pattern matching with templates in D,
but has there been any discussion about implementing it as a
language feature, maybe something similar to Rust's match
keyword
On Monday, 31 October 2016 at 20:23:13 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
One of the big features of D and a feature that is show cased
is CTFE. The regex module and the PEG parser generator are
projects that are often mentioned when talking about what CTFE
can do.
One of the, or _the_, major goal
On Monday, 31 October 2016 at 20:49:58 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On 10/31/16 9:29 AM, Stefan Koch wrote:
Hi Guys, since I got a few complaints about giving minor
status updates
in the announce group, I am opening this thread.
I will start with giving an overview of what works and what
On Tuesday, 1 November 2016 at 16:44:14 UTC, Nordlöw wrote:
On Monday, 31 October 2016 at 13:29:01 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
These are the constructs that will work.
- foreach on static arrays strings and range-foreach (those
kinds (0 .. 64)).
- switches (even deeply nested ones)
- for and
On Tuesday, 1 November 2016 at 15:50:06 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
Very recent news:
NEW CTFE PASSES THE DRUNTIME UNITESTS
Now a phobos unittest miscompiles :(
Again passing the unittests does not mean too much.
I just means I bail out before I generate invalid code :)
On Tuesday, 1 November 2016 at 21:12:06 UTC, Nordlöw wrote:
On Tuesday, 1 November 2016 at 19:28:03 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
Now a phobos unittest miscompiles :(
Again passing the unittests does not mean too much.
I just means I bail out before I generate invalid code :)
Keep up!
I am now
Hi Guys, since I got a few complaints about giving minor status
updates in the announce group, I am opening this thread.
I will start with giving an overview of what works and what does
not work.
Currently the only basic type you can do arithmetic on is int.
Altough you can compare longs
On Thursday, 3 November 2016 at 15:44:20 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
On Tuesday, 1 November 2016 at 17:41:35 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
I intend to keep the current implemntation around as a
fallback.
For things that are used rarely.
like floating point and others :)
Is that a good idea? It means
On Thursday, 3 November 2016 at 22:29:34 UTC, Jerry wrote:
So I was thinking of a way of extending if statements that have
declarations. The following being as example of the current use
of if statements with declarations:
[...]
Just Introduce another block
{
int i = someFunc();
if (i
On Wednesday, 2 November 2016 at 23:48:46 UTC, Nordlöw wrote:
On Wednesday, 2 November 2016 at 11:01:55 UTC, Stefan Koch
wrote:
I am now passing phobos unittests!
I can't wait to see this in action!
Keep on going and I'll keep praying...
No need for prayer.
I am trying my best to be
On Tuesday, 11 October 2016 at 14:24:56 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 10/11/2016 03:30 AM, Matthias Bentrup wrote:
A branch-free version:
void popFront4(ref char[] s) @trusted pure nothrow {
immutable c = s[0];
uint char_length = 1 + (c >= 192) + (c >= 240) + (c >= 248);
s =
On Tuesday, 11 October 2016 at 14:49:28 UTC, Matthias Bentrup
wrote:
This is the result I'd like to get, but I can't find a way to
write it without inline assembly :(
void popFrontAsmIntel(ref char[] s) @trusted pure nothrow {
immutable c = s[0];
if (c < 0x80) {
s = s[1 .. $];
}
301 - 400 of 1565 matches
Mail list logo
