[Issue 10763] (x)[0 .. 1] doesn't work in CTFE

2015-06-09 Thread via Digitalmars-d-bugs
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10763 Andrei Alexandrescu and...@erdani.com changed: What|Removed |Added Version|unspecified |D2 --

[Issue 10763] (x)[0 .. 1] doesn't work in CTFE

2013-10-10 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10763 --- Comment #12 from Iain Buclaw ibuc...@ubuntu.com 2013-10-10 04:26:12 PDT --- (In reply to comment #11) Don, I think I'm ready to test trial this in GDC if you are willing to implement this in DMD? Added support in GDC (but no

[Issue 10763] (x)[0 .. 1] doesn't work in CTFE

2013-08-19 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10763 --- Comment #5 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2013-08-19 02:37:33 PDT --- (In reply to comment #4) (In reply to comment #3) It's basically the same as issue 10266. Issue 10266 additionally requests allowing reinterpret-casts between T*

[Issue 10763] (x)[0 .. 1] doesn't work in CTFE

2013-08-19 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10763 --- Comment #6 from timon.g...@gmx.ch 2013-08-19 03:25:14 PDT --- (In reply to comment #5) (In reply to comment #4) (In reply to comment #3) ... The corner cases arise if you still disallow x + 1. My guess is that you're

[Issue 10763] (x)[0 .. 1] doesn't work in CTFE

2013-08-19 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10763 Iain Buclaw ibuc...@ubuntu.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ibuc...@ubuntu.com

[Issue 10763] (x)[0 .. 1] doesn't work in CTFE

2013-08-19 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10763 --- Comment #8 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2013-08-19 04:48:39 PDT --- (In reply to comment #7) (In reply to comment #3) It's basically the same as issue 10266. The corner cases arise if you still disallow x + 1. My guess is that

[Issue 10763] (x)[0 .. 1] doesn't work in CTFE

2013-08-19 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10763 --- Comment #9 from Iain Buclaw ibuc...@ubuntu.com 2013-08-19 05:29:09 PDT --- (In reply to comment #8) (In reply to comment #7) (In reply to comment #3) It's basically the same as issue 10266. The corner cases arise if you still

[Issue 10763] (x)[0 .. 1] doesn't work in CTFE

2013-08-19 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10763 --- Comment #10 from Iain Buclaw ibuc...@ubuntu.com 2013-08-19 07:44:59 PDT --- (In reply to comment #9) I veto any new addition that is x87 specific - or, more accurately endian specific. Remember its: version(BigEndian) short

[Issue 10763] (x)[0 .. 1] doesn't work in CTFE

2013-08-19 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10763 --- Comment #11 from Iain Buclaw ibuc...@ubuntu.com 2013-08-19 10:22:55 PDT --- (In reply to comment #10) So... this might be very well doable, but will have to be *extremely* careful about it. Also, I'm assuming that CTFE is able to get

[Issue 10763] (x)[0 .. 1] doesn't work in CTFE

2013-08-12 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10763 --- Comment #1 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2013-08-12 14:16:59 PDT --- This restriction is intentional. It's a consequence of strictly enforcing C's pointer arithmetic rules. You can only slice a pointer that you can perform pointer

[Issue 10763] (x)[0 .. 1] doesn't work in CTFE

2013-08-12 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10763 timon.g...@gmx.ch changed: What|Removed |Added CC||timon.g...@gmx.ch --- Comment #2

[Issue 10763] (x)[0 .. 1] doesn't work in CTFE

2013-08-12 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10763 --- Comment #3 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2013-08-12 17:13:15 PDT --- It's basically the same as issue 10266. The corner cases arise if you still disallow x + 1. My guess is that you're allowing it in your implementation? The problem with

[Issue 10763] (x)[0 .. 1] doesn't work in CTFE

2013-08-12 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10763 --- Comment #4 from timon.g...@gmx.ch 2013-08-12 19:01:50 PDT --- (In reply to comment #3) It's basically the same as issue 10266. Issue 10266 additionally requests allowing reinterpret-casts between T* and T[1]* (my implementation currently