[Issue 4360] Allow intrinsics in core.bitop to operate as intrinsics

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4360 --- Comment #4 from Sean Kelly s...@invisibleduck.org 2010-07-20 23:37:58 PDT --- Darnit, I did it again didn't I? I hope I still have the patch lying around. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email

[Issue 4385] Uncaught exceptions should dump a core

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4385 --- Comment #2 from Sean Kelly s...@invisibleduck.org 2010-07-21 07:13:04 PDT --- Oh you're right. It works in C++ because C++ doesn't auto-report uncaught exceptions, so when one passes out of main the process exits in some special manner

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #31 from Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com 2010-07-21 08:38:06 PDT --- (In reply to comment #30) Hm... I'd love to get this into D2, but the diffs are a bit large to apply by hand. I don't suppose you'd be inclined to provide a

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 nfx...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #689 is|0 |1 obsolete|

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #34 from nfx...@gmail.com 2010-07-21 11:57:02 PDT --- I don't really use D2 (all my code is in D1). Porting it to D2 will require dealing with the recently added array append stuff. Not sure how hard that would be, but currently I

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #35 from Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com 2010-07-21 11:59:40 PDT --- (In reply to comment #34) I don't really use D2 (all my code is in D1). Porting it to D2 will require dealing with the recently added array append stuff. Not

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #36 from nfx...@gmail.com 2010-07-21 12:05:08 PDT --- I guess we will have to see how Walter's 64 bit port will look like. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving

[Issue 4491] Assigning large const value to ulong type results in signed integer overflow

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4491 bearophile_h...@eml.cc changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bearophile_h...@eml.cc ---

[Issue 4492] New: Version of take() which takes from the back of a range

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4492 Summary: Version of take() which takes from the back of a range Product: D Version: D2 Platform: Other OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: enhancement

[Issue 4492] Version of take() which takes from the back of a range

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4492 David Simcha dsim...@yahoo.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dsim...@yahoo.com ---

[Issue 4492] Version of take() which takes from the back of a range

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4492 --- Comment #3 from David Simcha dsim...@yahoo.com 2010-07-21 19:16:35 PDT --- Two points: 1. Retro is not inefficient. For random access, there's the overhead of translating the index to length - index, but this is negligible in most cases