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:
versi
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 confir
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 du
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 CRunt
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. dip
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
ag
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 about
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 it
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 it
On 7/7/17 8:59 AM, Mike Parker wrote:
This is my latest post in the GC series. I had promised the next one
would look at non-GC allocation strategies, but as it got longer and
longer I decided to break it up into two parts. This part covers stack
allocations. The next one will deal with non-GC
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
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 a number of problems. dip1000 and similar things might
be abl
On Friday, 7 July 2017 at 12:59:44 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
This is my latest post in the GC series. I had promised the
next one would look at non-GC allocation strategies, but as it
got longer and longer I decided to break it up into two parts.
This part covers stack allocations. The next one w
18 matches
Mail list logo