Denis Koroskin:
void doSomething(T)(int i) {
if (i == 0) {
#if (is(T == A)) {
A.SomeAlias x;
#} else if (is(T == B)) {
B.SubType x;
#} else {
T x;
#}
x = ... whatever
}
else
int y = x;
Michel Fortin michel.for...@michelf.com wrote in message
news:gksbop$2tt...@digitalmars.com...
On 2009-01-16 22:17:57 -0500, Daniel Keep daniel.keep.li...@gmail.com
said:
The '#' has a nice connotation for anyone who's used to C/C++, given
that those statements are handled at compile time.
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 6:26 AM, Yigal Chripun yigal...@gmail.com wrote:
bearophile wrote:
Bill Baxter:
To me it's hard to see those variable declarations as being anything
other than scoped to the blocks they're in.
So all I'm saying is if we could have some different delimiters for
Bill Baxter wrote:
[snip]
in C# they use the same syntax as the c pre-processor for conditional
compilation and such even though C# doesn't have a pre-processor and the
syntax is interpreted by the compiler. the above would be something like:
void doSomething(T)(int i) {
if (i == 0)
Walter Bright wrote:
snip
Writing labeled block statements is something more likely to be
generated by an automated D code generator,
I still don't get it.
and it's convenient to be able to control if a scope is generated or not.
To force a block to create a scope:
{{
...
}}
To
Bill Baxter:
To me it's hard to see those variable declarations as being anything
other than scoped to the blocks they're in.
So all I'm saying is if we could have some different delimiters for
non-scope blocks then it might be nice, and make it easier to see when
scopes are ending and when
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 12:31 AM, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
Regarding the pure optimizations done by D2, how can the LDC compiler
do the same? Are them done by the front-end?
I changed nothing with the compiler. I just rewrote the runtime long
division function.
Can
It appears that you've also fixed
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2359 :D /* which might've
been the same issue as http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2527 */
Perhaps I can finally update from 1.031 : Thanks a bunch!
--
Tomasz Stachowiak
http://h3.team0xf.com/
Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 07:03:27 +0300, Bill Baxter wbax...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/7 Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com:
Faster long divides!
No progress on faster long compiles though?
--bb
Small statistics on compilation time of my small project:
DMD2.021 - 16
I'm happy to see Bugzilla 2518(scope(success) not execuate and RAII variable
destructor is not called) has been fixed, Great !
I have some questions when I check dstress suite and Bugzilla.
In Bugzilla 99, according to test case:
int main(){
int i;
label:
{
torhu wrote:
1.039 hangs while trying to build my DWT app, just like 1.038 did. It
just seems to never finish, so I kill it after a while. Don't know if
it's related to this issue or not.
I need a reproducible example.
redsea wrote:
I'm happy to see Bugzilla 2518(scope(success) not execuate and RAII
variable destructor is not called) has been fixed, Great !
I have some questions when I check dstress suite and Bugzilla.
In Bugzilla 99, according to test case:
int main(){ int i; label: { scope(exit) i++;
Jason House wrote:
Walter Bright Wrote:
redsea wrote:
I'm happy to see Bugzilla 2518(scope(success) not execuate and RAII
variable destructor is not called) has been fixed, Great !
I have some questions when I check dstress suite and Bugzilla.
In Bugzilla 99, according to test case:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 06:25:11 +0300, Brad Roberts bra...@puremagic.com wrote:
Jason House wrote:
Walter Bright Wrote:
redsea wrote:
I'm happy to see Bugzilla 2518(scope(success) not execuate and RAII
variable destructor is not called) has been fixed, Great !
I have some questions when I
Reply to Brad,
Restating in the form of a question... When would you _ever_ want
{...} to not form a scope?
static if(foo)
{
int i;
float x;
}
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 07:22:53 +0300, BCS a...@pathlink.com wrote:
Reply to Brad,
Restating in the form of a question... When would you _ever_ want
{...} to not form a scope?
static if(foo)
{
int i;
float x;
}
Yeah, and version(foo) belongs here, too.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Denis Koroskin 2kor...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 07:22:53 +0300, BCS a...@pathlink.com wrote:
Reply to Brad,
Restating in the form of a question... When would you _ever_ want
{...} to not form a scope?
static if(foo)
{
int i;
float x;
}
BCS wrote:
Reply to Brad,
Restating in the form of a question... When would you _ever_ want
{...} to not form a scope?
static if(foo)
{
int i;
float x;
}
That and the version one are good examples.
However, the case example isn't. It actually already forms a scope, and
Brad Roberts wrote:
Jason House wrote:
I don't think this answers their question. What curly braces mean
after a label is clearly a design decision that you made when writing
D. It seems that the choice is the opposite of what people expect.
Can you explain why it should be NonScope?
2009/1/7 Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com:
Faster long divides!
No progress on faster long compiles though?
--bb
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Bill Baxter wbax...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/7 Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com:
Faster long divides!
No progress on faster long compiles though?
--bb
The D2 changelog says that he undid the fix to 2500, which might be
the cause. But no word on
On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 06:53:27 +0300, Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com
wrote:
Faster long divides!
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.039.zip
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.023.zip
Nice!
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Denis Koroskin 2kor...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 06:53:27 +0300, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
Faster long divides!
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.039.zip
On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 07:16:38 +0300, Denis Koroskin 2kor...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 07:11:52 +0300, Bill Baxter wbax...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Denis Koroskin 2kor...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 06:53:27 +0300, Walter Bright
On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 07:11:52 +0300, Bill Baxter wbax...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Denis Koroskin 2kor...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 06:53:27 +0300, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
Faster long divides!
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 11:51 PM, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
The D2 changelog says that he undid the fix to 2500, which might be
the cause. But no word on whether it was the cause, or if D1 got the
revert as well.
D1 got the same reversion.
On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 07:03:27 +0300, Bill Baxter wbax...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/7 Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com:
Faster long divides!
No progress on faster long compiles though?
--bb
Small statistics on compilation time of my small project:
DMD2.021 - 16 seconds
DMD2.022 - 46
V 1.039 compiles my dlibs fine, but I have not timed the compilation times yet.
The long divides are much faster than before and almost as the ones done by
GCC, good work.
The timings of the division benchmark I have shown last time:
DMD1.038: 63.7 s
DMD1.039: 12.2 s
GCC4.2.1: 11.1 s
Denis Koroskin wrote:
(and an Internal error: ..\ztc\cod4.c 357 on one
of source code files) :)
Bugzilla report, pls!
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 2:10 PM, bearophile bearophileh...@lycos.com wrote:
V 1.039 compiles my dlibs fine, but I have not timed the compilation times
yet.
The long divides are much faster than before and almost as the ones done by
GCC, good work.
The timings of the division benchmark I
30 matches
Mail list logo
