[Issue 9029] Built-in types treated specially for alias parameters

2012-11-29 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9029 --- Comment #3 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2012-11-29 02:15:11 PST --- This is one of those perennial issues, that everybody discovers. Previous enhancement requests identical to this one include bug 1100, bug 3116, bug 4639. I remember

[Issue 9094] GC not collecting under Windows

2012-11-29 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9094 --- Comment #3 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2012-11-29 02:17:27 PST --- Yes, it's possible, but D has set a store by easy interoperability with C, and my experience is that having a protocol like that is doomed to misuse and

[Issue 9029] Built-in types treated specially for alias parameters

2012-11-29 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9029 --- Comment #4 from Manu turkey...@gmail.com 2012-11-29 03:37:32 PST --- (In reply to comment #3) This is one of those perennial issues, that everybody discovers. Previous enhancement requests identical to this one include bug 1100, bug

[Issue 9029] Built-in types treated specially for alias parameters

2012-11-29 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9029 Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||d...@me.com --- Comment

[Issue 9091] Perhaps another forward referencing bug.

2012-11-29 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9091 Manu turkey...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |major --- Comment #1 from

[Issue 5168] String enums don't work with -g compiler switch

2012-11-29 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5168 --- Comment #8 from github-bugzi...@puremagic.com 2012-11-29 04:20:26 PST --- Commit pushed to master at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd

[Issue 9088] static static

2012-11-29 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9088 Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Issue 4415] code generation for std.all fails on fedora

2012-11-29 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4415 Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Issue 6373] More descriptive 'hidden by X is deprecated' error

2012-11-29 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6373 Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||pull

[Issue 5043] writeln with empty arrays should write something useful

2012-11-29 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5043 Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Issue 9029] Built-in types treated specially for alias parameters

2012-11-29 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9029 --- Comment #6 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2012-11-29 08:08:00 PST --- (In reply to comment #5) (In reply to comment #4) There was a proposal recently on the NG suggesting builtin types should have entries in the symbol table. Sounded

[Issue 9029] Built-in types treated specially for alias parameters

2012-11-29 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9029 --- Comment #7 from Manu turkey...@gmail.com 2012-11-29 10:01:54 PST --- (In reply to comment #6) (In reply to comment #5) (In reply to comment #4) There was a proposal recently on the NG suggesting builtin types should have

[Issue 9088] static static

2012-11-29 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9088 --- Comment #2 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2012-11-29 10:08:58 PST --- (In reply to comment #1) Thank you for the answers Andrej. For functions: I think this might be the job of the compiler/linker. If there are multiple static function

[Issue 9096] New: comsub bug with chained function calls, optimization and attributes

2012-11-29 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9096 Summary: comsub bug with chained function calls, optimization and attributes Product: D Version: unspecified Platform: All OS/Version: Mac OS X Status: NEW

[Issue 9096] comsub bug with chained function calls, optimization and attributes

2012-11-29 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9096 d...@dawgfoto.de changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |major --- Comment #1 from

[Issue 9097] New: Value range propagation to disable some array bound tests

2012-11-29 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9097 Summary: Value range propagation to disable some array bound tests Product: D Version: D2 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement

[Issue 9029] Built-in types treated specially for alias parameters

2012-11-29 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9029 --- Comment #8 from Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com 2012-11-29 11:58:16 PST --- (In reply to comment #7) When did the difficulty come in to question? Something to do with this 'dragon book' that I don't understand? I don't know. There's a book

[Issue 9029] Built-in types treated specially for alias parameters

2012-11-29 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9029 --- Comment #9 from Manu turkey...@gmail.com 2012-11-29 12:22:15 PST --- I ran into this bug again today twice. In one case the alias was to receive 'void' which it didn't like either. -- Configure issuemail:

[Issue 9098] New: Error with ddoc: octal digit expected

2012-11-29 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9098 Summary: Error with ddoc: octal digit expected Product: D Version: D2 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component:

[Issue 4561] D2 Language Docs: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/function.html

2012-11-29 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4561 Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Issue 8928] Poor error message for derived class without constructor

2012-11-29 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8928 Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||pull

[Issue 8892] Not precise error message with failed fixed size array assign

2012-11-29 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8892 --- Comment #3 from Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com 2012-11-29 14:49:23 PST --- *** Issue 8918 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. *** -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ---

[Issue 8918] Wrong sized literal assigned to fixed size literal error message

2012-11-29 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8918 Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Issue 6949] no warning or error if unsigned variable is compared to 0

2012-11-29 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6949 Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||pull

[Issue 6949] no warning or error if unsigned variable is compared to 0

2012-11-29 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6949 bearophile_h...@eml.cc changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bearophile_h...@eml.cc ---

[Issue 6949] no warning or error if unsigned variable is compared to 0

2012-11-29 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6949 --- Comment #3 from Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com 2012-11-29 16:40:59 PST --- (In reply to comment #2) Is Phobos giving some warnings with this patch? More study is probably needed. The autotester is running. It failed once

[Issue 6949] no warning or error if unsigned variable is compared to 0

2012-11-29 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6949 --- Comment #5 from Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com 2012-11-29 17:21:48 PST --- (In reply to comment #4) In your code this comment is obsolete: // Warn when unsigned type is ... Thanks. -- Configure issuemail:

[Issue 6949] no warning or error if unsigned variable is compared to 0

2012-11-29 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6949 --- Comment #4 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2012-11-29 17:20:37 PST --- (In reply to comment #3) I've added a workaround so the warning isn't triggered in this case anymore. We'll see what the tester says.. OK. It seems Andrei has

[Issue 6949] no warning or error if unsigned variable is compared to 0

2012-11-29 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6949 --- Comment #6 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2012-11-29 18:03:20 PST --- How about code like this? void main() { uint i = 0; if (i == -2) assert(0, never); } Note that this is currently valid D code: void main() { uint i =

[Issue 6949] no warning or error if unsigned variable is compared to 0

2012-11-29 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6949 --- Comment #7 from Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com 2012-11-29 18:14:27 PST --- (In reply to comment #6) How about code like this? void main() { uint i = 0; if (i == -2) assert(0, never); } Note that

[Issue 6949] no warning or error if unsigned variable is compared to 0

2012-11-29 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6949 --- Comment #8 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2012-11-29 18:17:45 PST --- (In reply to comment #7) I want to see how Walter reacts to the pull before these are handled. Right, OK. This new error message of yours hits code like this in

[Issue 6949] no warning or error if unsigned variable is compared to 0

2012-11-29 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6949 --- Comment #9 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2012-11-29 18:22:17 PST --- Maybe you want to temporarily turn your new error message into a warning (that later will become an error again, if you want), so if Phobos gets entirely compiled with -wi

[Issue 6949] no warning or error if unsigned variable is compared to 0

2012-11-29 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6949 --- Comment #10 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2012-11-29 19:50:14 PST --- (In reply to comment #6) How about code like this? void main() { uint i = 0; if (i == -2) assert(0, never); } Equality has nothing

[Issue 6949] no warning or error if unsigned variable is compared to 0

2012-11-29 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6949 --- Comment #11 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2012-11-29 20:15:15 PST --- (In reply to comment #10) Some languages, such as Java, deal with this duality by defining the unsigned type out of existence. There are languages like Ada, that have