On Wednesday, 26 October 2016 at 16:24:49 UTC, MakersF wrote:
On Wednesday, 26 October 2016 at 15:02:28 UTC, Stefam Koch
wrote:
Who can guess what this code does ?
char[] obfuscatedFn(string a, string b, uint aLength = 0, uint
bLength = 0, uint cLength = 0, uint pos = 0, uint bPos = 0,
On Wednesday, 26 October 2016 at 15:38:30 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
On Wednesday, 26 October 2016 at 15:02:28 UTC, Stefam Koch
wrote:
bLength = cast(uint)a.length;
Reads past the end of b if b is shorter than a.
you are right.
Thanks for spotting it :)
Who can guess what this code does ?
char[] obfuscatedFn(string a, string b, uint aLength = 0, uint
bLength = 0, uint cLength = 0, uint pos = 0, uint bPos = 0,
char[] result = [])
{
aLength = cast(uint)a.length;
bLength = cast(uint)a.length;
cLength = aLength + bLength;
On Tuesday, 25 October 2016 at 17:19:26 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
Very impressive :)
Thanks.
I just got the following code to compile and execute correctly.
bool strEq(string a, string b)
{
if (a.length != b.length)
{
return false;
}
uint length = cast(uint)
On Tuesday, 25 October 2016 at 15:57:33 UTC, Wyatt wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 October 2016 at 12:36:56 UTC, Stefam Koch wrote:
LLVM Backend (-ctfe-bc -version=UseLLVMBackend) :
real0m0.039s
user0m0.027s
sys 0m0.010s
I think 20,000% is a pretty good speedup! ;) Great stuff.
Now that
On Tuesday, 25 October 2016 at 09:36:12 UTC, Stefam Koch wrote:
On Monday, 24 October 2016 at 06:37:12 UTC, Rory McGuire wrote:
Cool, thanks for the feedback.
I have take care of the blocker for now.
I turns out my tests contained wrong code that reused a
register for multiple purposes.
On Monday, 24 October 2016 at 06:37:12 UTC, Rory McGuire wrote:
Cool, thanks for the feedback.
I have take care of the blocker for now.
I turns out my tests contained wrong code that reused a register
for multiple purposes.
LLVM does not like that.
So it assumed the wrong things while
On Monday, 24 October 2016 at 05:57:42 UTC, Stefam Koch wrote:
On Sunday, 16 October 2016 at 00:27:50 UTC, Uplink_Coder wrote:
Little update here:
The LLVM backend is almost on feature parity.
Meaning that that soon the new CTFE engine is a real jit.
In the process I discoverd quite a few
On Sunday, 16 October 2016 at 00:27:50 UTC, Uplink_Coder wrote:
Little update here:
The LLVM backend is almost on feature parity.
Meaning that that soon the new CTFE engine is a real jit.
In the process I discoverd quite a few horrible bugs and
inconsistency in the API.
I am quite astonished
