http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2631
yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5061
yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yebbl...@gmail.com
---
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5817
Iain Buclaw ibuc...@ubuntu.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6163
yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5471
yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3075
yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eatingstap...@gmail.com
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5480
yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yebbl...@gmail.com
---
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5472
yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4174
yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch, rejects-valid
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4818
yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5818
Brad Roberts bra...@puremagic.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5528
yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3147
yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bearophile_h...@eml.cc
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5176
yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||michel.for...@michelf.com
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3669
yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4251
Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||s...@iname.com
---
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4251
--- Comment #6 from yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com 2011-06-16 01:41:07 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
I agree about the first five of these. But I'm not sure if this last one is
safe. I'll think about it when I've more time. In any case,
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5633
yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yebbl...@gmail.com
---
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6159
yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5176
--- Comment #5 from Michel Fortin michel.for...@michelf.com 2011-06-16
06:23:20 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #0)
To avoid this, static object sizes should be limited to a value that
guarantees
hardware memory protection (e.g. 64KB).
I
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3113
yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1449
yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1449
bearophile_h...@eml.cc changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bearophile_h...@eml.cc
---
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3113
klickverbot c...@klickverbot.at changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1449
--- Comment #5 from yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com 2011-06-16 05:14:26 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Please yebblies, you are doing a good work, but be generally more careful
before closing issues. If Lars Ivar Igesund isn't around now (this
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3113
--- Comment #3 from yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com 2011-06-16 05:18:11 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Reopening this, as the compiler doesn't even error out with the »-w« switch –
the »override compulsory« check seems to be broken in the
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1449
--- Comment #6 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-06-16 05:22:13 PDT ---
Closing a bug report that is invalid does not do harm to anything, the
information is still there,
I think that in practice you are wrong: with the amount of open bugs, a
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3113
--- Comment #4 from klickverbot c...@klickverbot.at 2011-06-16 05:23:12 PDT
---
R(In reply to comment #3)
(In reply to comment #2)
Reopening this, as the compiler doesn't even error out with the »-w« switch
–
the »override compulsory«
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3113
--- Comment #4 from klickverbot c...@klickverbot.at 2011-06-16 05:23:12 PDT
---
R(In reply to comment #3)
(In reply to comment #2)
Reopening this, as the compiler doesn't even error out with the »-w« switch
–
the »override compulsory«
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3113
bearophile_h...@eml.cc changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bearophile_h...@eml.cc
---
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3147
--- Comment #11 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-06-16 05:30:16 PDT ---
This example was in bug 5528:
void main() {
uint i = 10;
ubyte x1 = i % ubyte.max;
ulong l = 10;
uint x2 = l % uint.max;
}
--
Configure issuemail:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1449
--- Comment #7 from yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com 2011-06-16 05:39:11 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Closing a bug report that is invalid does not do harm to anything, the
information is still there,
I think that in practice you are
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1449
--- Comment #9 from yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com 2011-06-16 06:32:51 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #8)
I agree with Bearophile. Moreover, as I see it, a hole in the deprecation
system constitutes a bug, just as most of us seem to agree that a
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1449
--- Comment #10 from Lars Ivar Igesund larsi...@igesund.net 2011-06-16
06:44:29 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #9)
To quote the spec:
It is often necessary to deprecate a feature in a library, yet retain it for
backwards compatibility.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1449
--- Comment #11 from Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com 2011-06-16 06:45:09 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #9)
(In reply to comment #8)
I agree with Bearophile. Moreover, as I see it, a hole in the deprecation
system constitutes a bug, just as
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3113
--- Comment #7 from yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com 2011-06-16 06:48:41 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Remove the �final� attribute and compile the example with -w, and you'll see.
I get an error when compiling without the final attribute,
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1449
--- Comment #12 from yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com 2011-06-16 07:22:09 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #10)
It does so implicitly.
If you have
Bar b = new Foo;
and do
b.foo();
the compiler will not be able to catch it, as it
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3113
Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1449
klickverbot c...@klickverbot.at changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||c...@klickverbot.at
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4251
--- Comment #7 from Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com 2011-06-16
08:06:02 PDT ---
I think the cases are all sound.
In order for there to be a problem, both mutable and immutable data need to be
castable into const. If you cannot cast
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3113
--- Comment #10 from yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com 2011-06-16 08:09:46 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #9)
(In reply to comment #8)
This occurs even when I mark DerivedClass' function as final.
I think it is quite clear that the example you
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3113
--- Comment #9 from klickverbot c...@klickverbot.at 2011-06-16 08:06:26 PDT
---
(In reply to comment #8)
This occurs even when I mark DerivedClass' function as final.
I think it is quite clear that the example you gave shouldn't compile, as
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5817
--- Comment #4 from Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com 2011-06-16
08:10:02 PDT ---
Thanks, Iain. Sorry I didn't get to this.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4251
--- Comment #8 from yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com 2011-06-16 08:14:06 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #7)
This is definitely one of those things that makes my brain hurt... It's like 4
dimensional geometry :)
I had to draw out tables and diagrams
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1449
--- Comment #14 from yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com 2011-06-16 08:17:10 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #13)
What do you think about adding something like this to the spec? �If a program
which includes deprecated declarations compiles without any
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3113
--- Comment #11 from Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com 2011-06-16
08:20:45 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #9)
(In reply to comment #8)
This occurs even when I mark DerivedClass' function as final.
I think it is quite clear that
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1449
--- Comment #15 from klickverbot c...@klickverbot.at 2011-06-16 08:44:21 PDT
---
(In reply to comment #14)
(In reply to comment #13)
What do you think about adding something like this to the spec? �If a
program
which includes
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1449
--- Comment #17 from klickverbot c...@klickverbot.at 2011-06-16 09:32:19 PDT
---
(In reply to comment #16)
If that was stated explicitly in the spec, there is no way this bug could
possibly be INVALID, as removing the declaration of foo()
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4251
--- Comment #9 from Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com 2011-06-16 12:12:23 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
immutable(T*)** = const(T*)** allowed, same number of mutable indirections
As it turns out, this is unsafe, as the following code shows:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4251
Andrei Alexandrescu and...@metalanguage.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6164
Summary: [CTFE] Local arrays in a recursive local function
behave funny
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6164
kenn...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kenn...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4251
--- Comment #11 from Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com 2011-06-16 13:18:31 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #10)
Yah, this has constantly puzzled starting C++ programmers - you can convert
char* to const(char*) but not char** to const(char*)*.
Do
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6165
Summary: Anonymous enums specification
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: Other
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: DMD
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6166
Summary: Named return value optimization not dealt with in
inline assembler
Product: D
Version: unspecified
Platform: Other
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6167
Summary: RefCounted and lazy/delegate
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: Other
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: DMD
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6167
--- Comment #1 from Jose Garcia jsan...@gmail.com 2011-06-16 16:00:39 PDT ---
Also, note that if change fun to not be a member function you get the
following:
struct Struct
{
this(int dummy) { refCount = RefCounted!Impl(Impl(dummy)); }
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6168
Summary: Regression (2.047): Cannot create enum of struct with
constructor
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6169
Summary: [CTFE] pure functions cannot compute constants using
functions not marked as pure
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6169
bearophile_h...@eml.cc changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bearophile_h...@eml.cc
---
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4251
--- Comment #12 from yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com 2011-06-16 20:18:02 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #9)
(In reply to comment #5)
immutable(T*)** = const(T*)** allowed, same number of mutable
indirections
As it turns out, this is unsafe,
61 matches
Mail list logo
