On 7/7/17 9:51 PM, Mike Parker wrote:
On Saturday, 8 July 2017 at 01:28:59 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/7/2017 4:35 PM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
It's an intrinsic in LDC. We can certainly drop the per platform and
move to a per compiler definition instead.
It's already there under:
On 7/7/2017 6:51 PM, Mike Parker wrote:
I read this as CRuntime_DigitalMars, which prompted a search that led me to a
page at MSDN on _alloca, which gave me a compiler error when I prototyped it,
which led to my prototyping alloca for CRuntime_Microsoft and finding success,
which has now
On 7/7/2017 6:28 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/7/2017 4:35 PM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
It's an intrinsic in LDC. We can certainly drop the per platform and move to a
per compiler definition instead.
It's already there under:
version (DigitalMars)
Just to beat that dead horse into the
On Saturday, 8 July 2017 at 01:28:59 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/7/2017 4:35 PM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
It's an intrinsic in LDC. We can certainly drop the per
platform and move to a per compiler definition instead.
It's already there under:
version (DigitalMars)
I read this as
On 7/7/2017 4:35 PM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
It's an intrinsic in LDC. We can certainly drop the per platform and move to a
per compiler definition instead.
It's already there under:
version (DigitalMars)
On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 07:12:28PM -0600, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> On Friday, July 7, 2017 1:48:47 PM MDT Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-
> announce wrote:
[...]
> > The implicit slice is one of what I see as D's design flaws and
> > brings up a number of problems.
On Friday, July 7, 2017 1:48:47 PM MDT Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-
announce wrote:
> I would add a note to the "static arrays are interchangeable with
> dynamic arrays" saying that you can... and probably should
> explicitly slice them with `[]`.
>
> The implicit slice is one of what I see as
On Friday, 7 July 2017 at 22:42:08 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/7/2017 1:33 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Since it's an intrinsic (as confirmed by you), maybe we can
just drop the version conditions? The compiler will always
generate it, regardless of C lib, right? I'll do the PR if you
On 7/7/2017 1:33 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Since it's an intrinsic (as confirmed by you), maybe we can just drop the
version conditions? The compiler will always generate it, regardless of C lib,
right? I'll do the PR if you agree (just want to make sure I understand your
statements
On 7/7/17 4:10 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/7/2017 12:38 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Which would mean that the lack of alloca prototype on Windows is a
straight up bug (the fact that you can just add the declaration and it
works is pretty good proof).
It's in core.stdc.stdlib
Since
On 07-07-17 22:10, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/7/2017 12:38 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Which would mean that the lack of alloca prototype on Windows is a
straight up bug (the fact that you can just add the declaration and it
works is pretty good proof).
It's in core.stdc.stdlib
Only for
On 7/7/2017 12:38 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Which would mean that the lack of alloca prototype on Windows is a straight up
bug (the fact that you can just add the declaration and it works is pretty good
proof).
It's in core.stdc.stdlib
On 7/7/2017 12:36 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I thought alloca was an intrinsic? Which means that the compiler generates
inline code to add to the stack.
I would think it has to do this, since actually calling a function would
generate a new stack frame.
Yes and yes.
On 7/7/17 3:36 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I thought alloca was an intrinsic? Which means that the compiler
generates inline code to add to the stack.
Which would mean that the lack of alloca prototype on Windows is a
straight up bug (the fact that you can just add the declaration and
heap allocations.
If my luck holds out, we're about to see a flurry of guest posts and
collaborations over the next few weeks. If that pans out, I expect to
publish the part two in mid-late August.
The blog:
https://dlang.org/blog/2017/07/07/go-your-own-way-part-one-the-stack/
Reddit:
https
On Friday, 7 July 2017 at 13:48:47 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
I would add a note to the "static arrays are interchangeable
with dynamic arrays" saying that you can... and probably should
explicitly slice them with `[]`.
The implicit slice is one of what I see as D's design flaws and
brings up
will deal with
non-GC heap allocations.
If my luck holds out, we're about to see a flurry of guest
posts and collaborations over the next few weeks. If that pans
out, I expect to publish the part two in mid-late August.
The blog:
https://dlang.org/blog/2017/07/07/go-your-own-way-part-one
out, we're about to see a flurry of guest posts
and collaborations over the next few weeks. If that pans out, I
expect to publish the part two in mid-late August.
The blog:
https://dlang.org/blog/2017/07/07/go-your-own-way-part-one-the-stack/
Reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming
18 matches
Mail list logo
