Re: Getting ready for 2.061

2012-12-22 Thread Russel Winder
There are still 7 reported regressions unfinished according to http://d.puremagic.com/issues/buglist.cgi?y_axis_field=bug_severityquery_format=report-tableproduct=Dbug_status=NEWbug_status=ASSIGNEDbug_status=REOPENEDbug_severity=regression and if 8774 is not fixed then DMD 2.061 will be as

Re: Getting ready for 2.061

2012-12-22 Thread Russel Winder
On Sat, 2012-12-22 at 01:10 -0800, Jonathan M Davis wrote: […] It sounds like no one even has a clue which project the bug is in. It's clearly a major problem, but unless someone can figure out what's wrong, it's obviously not going to be fixed. Someone analysed this for a couple of days

Re: Getting ready for 2.061

2012-12-22 Thread dennis luehring
Am 22.12.2012 11:31, schrieb Russel Winder: On Sat, 2012-12-22 at 01:10 -0800, Jonathan M Davis wrote: [
] It sounds like no one even has a clue which project the bug is in. It's clearly a major problem, but unless someone can figure out what's wrong, it's obviously not going to be fixed.

Re: Getting ready for 2.061

2012-12-22 Thread Russel Winder
On Sat, 2012-12-22 at 11:36 +0100, dennis luehring wrote: […] so first you need to update your bug-report - you stated that ldc is also not working - thats a bug in you bug report :) It turns out to be more complicated than that. There isn't a bug in the bug report: LDC does work where DMD

Re: Getting ready for 2.061

2012-12-22 Thread dennis luehring
Am 22.12.2012 13:15, schrieb Russel Winder: After New Year/Hogmanay, or earlier if possible, I will reinvestigate all the factors and update the issue appropriately. sound for me like an bug in the dmd code generation - ldc frontend code should be nearly the same (or better: i don't think

Re: Getting ready for 2.061

2012-12-22 Thread David Nadlinger
On Saturday, 22 December 2012 at 12:15:38 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: Interesting (or not) side observation: LDC generally creates faster executables than DMD, except in one or two cases that I have. If you ever have time to do some quick profiling, could you please try to figure out why the

Re: Getting ready for 2.061

2012-12-22 Thread Russel Winder
On Sat, 2012-12-22 at 17:41 +0100, David Nadlinger wrote: […] If you ever have time to do some quick profiling, could you please try to figure out why the LDC-generated executable is slower – or if the code you are working on is open source, put some instructions together on how to run the

Re: Getting ready for 2.061

2012-12-22 Thread Jesse Phillips
On Friday, 21 December 2012 at 22:12:47 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: We plan to start building a new release on Sunday evening. To do so (pursuant to the embryonic process we're putting in place), at that time we'll create a new branch called staging for each of dmd, druntime, and phobos.

Re: Getting ready for 2.061

2012-12-22 Thread Andrei Alexandrescu
On 12/22/12 1:39 PM, Jesse Phillips wrote: On Friday, 21 December 2012 at 22:12:47 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: We plan to start building a new release on Sunday evening. To do so (pursuant to the embryonic process we're putting in place), at that time we'll create a new branch called

Re: Getting ready for 2.061

2012-12-22 Thread Alex Rønne Petersen
On 22-12-2012 06:11, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Friday, December 21, 2012 17:12:47 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: We plan to start building a new release on Sunday evening. To do so (pursuant to the embryonic process we're putting in place), at that time we'll create a new branch called staging for

Re: Amber

2012-12-22 Thread Faux Amis
On 21/12/2012 19:02, Lars Ivar Igesund wrote: Dear D community, I've been urged by many others to post about Amber here. It is a programming language being derived from D1, with a compiler written using D1 and Tango, with LLVM and C backends. The quality of code and documention is alpha (or

Re: Getting ready for 2.061

2012-12-22 Thread Brad Roberts
On 12/22/2012 10:39 AM, Jesse Phillips wrote: On Friday, 21 December 2012 at 22:12:47 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: We plan to start building a new release on Sunday evening. To do so (pursuant to the embryonic process we're putting in place), at that time we'll create a new branch called

Re: Getting ready for 2.061

2012-12-22 Thread Jesse Phillips
On Saturday, 22 December 2012 at 21:48:51 UTC, Brad Roberts wrote: I strongly recommend requiring that all bugs be first fixed in the development branch and then being pushed backwards through the version history. Quite a few projects follow this pattern based on the requirement that no fix

Re: Getting ready for 2.061

2012-12-22 Thread Brad Roberts
On 12/22/2012 3:44 PM, Jesse Phillips wrote: On Saturday, 22 December 2012 at 21:48:51 UTC, Brad Roberts wrote: I strongly recommend requiring that all bugs be first fixed in the development branch and then being pushed backwards through the version history. Quite a few projects follow

Re: Getting ready for 2.061

2012-12-22 Thread Jonathan M Davis
On Saturday, December 22, 2012 17:36:11 Brad Roberts wrote: On 12/22/2012 3:44 PM, Jesse Phillips wrote: What is nice about making a pull request against staging is that the reviewer knows that the fix can be applied that far (not that comments wouldn't do the same). I don't believe

Re: Getting ready for 2.061

2012-12-22 Thread Walter Bright
On 12/22/2012 5:43 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Saturday, December 22, 2012 17:36:11 Brad Roberts wrote: On 12/22/2012 3:44 PM, Jesse Phillips wrote: What is nice about making a pull request against staging is that the reviewer knows that the fix can be applied that far (not that comments