[Issue 8058] New: assert(false) displays incomplete filename
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8058 Summary: assert(false) displays incomplete filename Product: D Version: D2 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: druntime AssignedTo: nob...@puremagic.com ReportedBy: tim.dolo...@gmail.com --- Comment #0 from Tim Smith tim.dolo...@gmail.com 2012-05-06 23:48:18 PDT --- Created an attachment (id=1101) assertFilenameBug.d: Code to demo the issue If assert() is called without a message, then the filename is missing the .d extension. If called with a message string, assert() prints the correct filename. Example: core.exception.AssertError@assertFilenameBug(40): Assertion failure core.exception.AssertError@assertFilenameBug.d(39): Test with message Compile the attached with DMD v2.059 (installed on OS X with 'brew install dmd'). Run as './assertFilenameBug' or './assertFilenameBug OkayIfHasMessage'. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 8058] assert(false) displays incomplete filename
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8058 Tim Smith tim.dolo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #1101|application/octet-stream|text/plain mime type|| -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 8037] hasElaborateDestructor is false for non-zero-length static array of structs with elaborate destructor
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8037 --- Comment #3 from github-bugzi...@puremagic.com 2012-05-06 23:58:39 PDT --- Commits pushed to master at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/commit/a6e38e347247b35bb8473f0e0b9084fb6cb43721 Fix Issue 8037 - hasElaborateDestructor is false for non-zero-length static array of structs with elaborate destructor https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/commit/0e42d76509f04e637a1a23a6bcadc1e0c3f111bd Merge pull request #568 from denis-sh/hasElaborateDestructor-fix Fix Issue 8037 - hasElaborateDestructor is false for non-zero-length static array of structs with elaborate destructor -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 8037] hasElaborateDestructor is false for non-zero-length static array of structs with elaborate destructor
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8037 Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 6857] Precondition contract checks should be statically bound.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #61 from Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com 2012-05-07 03:58:47 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #58)
It's not that simple. Several considerations have to be met:
1. Because of struct construction/destruction, you really only
want to construct the parameter list *once*, but you're calling two
functions with the same parameter list.
Can't this be solved by simply making all struct parameters to the in/out
functions ref?
(I've never been sure about this struct construction/destruction business
anyway. Struct constructors are nice, but I must've thought at a time that
part of the design of D is that structs can always safely be just bit-copied.)
2. Variadic functions mean that one function cannot forward to
another one using standard functions. (Perhaps a dirty magic thunk
can work.)
3. The presence or absence of contracts must not change the ABI of
the function.
4. The virtual table must be unchanged.
I assume these were part of the reason for using nested functions to implement
contract inheritance. 2 is indeed something that needs to be considered. But
is forwarding the arguments any more difficult than putting the arguments onto
the stack in the first place?
As for 3 and 4, the in/out functions don't need to be virtual as far as I can
see, so this shouldn't cause much difficulty.
5. It's not so practical to jump into the middle of another
function - things just aren't designed that way.
6. The caller now has to be aware of contracts in the called
function, this was never necessary before.
I think this is a good thing, since it enables the user of a library to switch
on/off in contract checking without having to rebuild the library.
(In reply to comment #56)
class A {
static void foo_in(A x) { assert(n0); }
virtual int foo(int n) { foo_in(this, n); return foo_body(n); }
virtual int foo_body(int n) { return n; }
}
foo needs to be non-virtual - otherwise you're implementing dynamic binding,
which we already have, not static binding.
Indeed, it should be something like this
class A {
void foo_in(int n) { assert(n0); }
int foo_dbc(int n) { foo_in(this, n); return foo(n); }
virtual int foo(int n) { return n; }
}
then a call to foo would translate to a call to foo_dbc when compiling in
non-release mode. This also has the advantage of not changing the vtable
layout.
The difficulty is that the library might have been built in release mode, with
foo_in and foo_dbc absent. Can we get around this by treating them as nullary
templates, so they are compiled/linked in according to usage?
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 8056] Properties should behave like variables, e.g. compound assignments
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8056 Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||s...@iname.com Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Comment #2 from Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com 2012-05-07 04:06:20 PDT --- *** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of issue 8006 *** -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 8006] Implement proper in-place-modification for properties
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8006 Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wfunct...@hotmail.com --- Comment #1 from Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com 2012-05-07 04:06:21 PDT --- *** Issue 8056 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. *** -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 8059] Deprecate .classinfo
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8059 --- Comment #1 from Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com 2012-05-07 04:38:39 PDT --- See also issue 3346 -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 8059] New: Deprecate .classinfo
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8059
Summary: Deprecate .classinfo
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: minor
Priority: P2
Component: DMD
AssignedTo: nob...@puremagic.com
ReportedBy: schvei...@yahoo.com
--- Comment #0 from Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com 2012-05-07
04:35:49 PDT ---
Since 2.037, this function will always pass:
checkClass(Object o)
{
assert(typeid(o) is o.classinfo);
}
Isn't it about time .classinfo was deprecated? It's still in the docs, and
still compiles. It isn't mentioned in TDPL.
Is there a reason to keep it?
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 8059] Deprecate .classinfo
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8059 Alex R�nne Petersen xtzgzo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||xtzgzo...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Alex R�nne Petersen xtzgzo...@gmail.com 2012-05-07 04:40:25 PDT --- I think the intention has always been to deprecate it. It's about time we actually do so. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 6857] Precondition contract checks should be statically bound.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857 --- Comment #62 from deadalnix deadal...@gmail.com 2012-05-07 04:43:25 PDT --- (In reply to comment #60) This has been some significant pwning of Walter and myself, and I think there is a larger lesson here we should learn. Quoting yourself � Mistakes happen to the best of us. �. Don't worry, I think your reaction is very safe, and I'm happy to see D evolving that way. Changing how the language work must be done only if strong arguments are made. Providing documentation on language design decision is surely a way to improve the current state of things. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 6857] Precondition contract checks should be statically bound.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #63 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2012-05-07
08:29:21 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #61)
(In reply to comment #58)
It's not that simple. Several considerations have to be met:
1. Because of struct construction/destruction, you really only
want to construct the parameter list *once*, but you're calling two
functions with the same parameter list.
Can't this be solved by simply making all struct parameters to the in/out
functions ref?
Losing all C ABI compatiblity in the process.
I assume these were part of the reason for using nested functions to implement
contract inheritance. 2 is indeed something that needs to be considered. But
is forwarding the arguments any more difficult than putting the arguments onto
the stack in the first place?
How do you forward a variadic function? You don't know what's on the stack to
forward.
class A {
void foo_in(int n) { assert(n0); }
int foo_dbc(int n) { foo_in(this, n); return foo(n); }
virtual int foo(int n) { return n; }
}
then a call to foo would translate to a call to foo_dbc when compiling in
non-release mode. This also has the advantage of not changing the vtable
layout.
Again, you're pushing the parameters on the stack twice - and this won't work
for variadic functions.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 6857] Precondition contract checks should be statically bound.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857 --- Comment #64 from deadalnix deadal...@gmail.com 2012-05-07 09:00:05 PDT --- (In reply to comment #63) Again, you're pushing the parameters on the stack twice - and this won't work for variadic functions. Why not jump in the function directly after the prolog and not push arguments twice on the stack ? -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 6857] Precondition contract checks should be statically bound.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857 --- Comment #65 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2012-05-07 09:36:56 PDT --- (In reply to comment #64) Why not jump in the function directly after the prolog and not push arguments twice on the stack ? Not so easy given how back ends are designed. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 8039] `scoped` doesn't call any elaborate destructors for struct fields
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8039 --- Comment #2 from github-bugzi...@puremagic.com 2012-05-07 09:37:42 PDT --- Commits pushed to master at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/commit/273eb2122665312011b8bb9bd21e9c85aba140c5 Fix Issue 8039 - `scoped` doesn't call any elaborate destructors for struct fields Phobos isn't a place for runtime stuff like `destroy`. And Phobos developers aren't people who should write/check such stuff. https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/commit/cc636bea73841cfe0250a143cfba3400991cb2bd Merge pull request #569 from denis-sh/scoped-bug8039-fix Fix Issue 8039 - `scoped` doesn't call any elaborate destructors for struct fields -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 6857] Precondition contract checks should be statically bound.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857 --- Comment #66 from Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com 2012-05-07 10:32:33 PDT --- (In reply to comment #63) Can't this be solved by simply making all struct parameters to the in/out functions ref? Losing all C ABI compatiblity in the process. Contracts don't exist in C - so what's there to lose? How do you forward a variadic function? You don't know what's on the stack to forward. How do you implement a variadic function at all without knowing this? -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 6857] Precondition contract checks should be statically bound.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857 --- Comment #67 from Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com 2012-05-07 10:48:26 PDT --- (In reply to comment #62) Changing how the language work must be done only if strong arguments are made. Unless I've missed something, the language leaves this unspecified. So a compiler is free to do it either way. Though it would be better if it were specified. Providing documentation on language design decision is surely a way to improve the current state of things. Indeed, if all rationales scattered about the D docs were collected in one place, and a few more that we ought to have were added, I wonder how big this section would be. FTR, look at the PNG rationale page http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/spec/1.2/PNG-Rationale.html -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 6857] Precondition contract checks should be statically bound.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857 --- Comment #68 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2012-05-07 12:17:19 PDT --- (In reply to comment #66) (In reply to comment #63) Can't this be solved by simply making all struct parameters to the in/out functions ref? Losing all C ABI compatiblity in the process. Contracts don't exist in C - so what's there to lose? 1. pass by ref is semantically very different from pass by value. It is necessary to support both. 2. D supports using C calling conventions, including having contracts on functions callable from C. How do you forward a variadic function? You don't know what's on the stack to forward. How do you implement a variadic function at all without knowing this? See printf, an example of where such knowledge is known by the programmer, not the language semantics. Just for fun, I suggest you try to implement a myprintf function which forwards all its arguments to printf. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 6857] Precondition contract checks should be statically bound.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857 --- Comment #69 from Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com 2012-05-07 12:26:47 PDT --- (In reply to comment #68) 1. pass by ref is semantically very different from pass by value. It is necessary to support both. The function that implements a contract is an internal thing. If you can implement said function to receive the struct by value, you can equally implement it to receive the struct by reference. 2. D supports using C calling conventions, including having contracts on functions callable from C. But the contract itself doesn't need to be callable from C. Only the overall function does. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 64] Unhandled errors should go to stderr
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=64 --- Comment #7 from github-bugzi...@puremagic.com 2012-05-07 12:29:27 PDT --- Commit pushed to dmd-1.x at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/246f737c0f246f0b89ee27bfb611965e64f611ac start on fixing issue 5570 64 bit ABI -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 64] Unhandled errors should go to stderr
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=64 --- Comment #8 from github-bugzi...@puremagic.com 2012-05-07 12:29:41 PDT --- Commit pushed to master at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/f1039b341f2798f176dcf3c34019682d413ea863 start on fixing issue 5570 64 bit ABI -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 5570] 64 bit C ABI not followed for passing structs and complex numbers as function parameters
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570 --- Comment #15 from github-bugzi...@puremagic.com 2012-05-07 12:29:35 PDT --- Commit pushed to dmd-1.x at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/246f737c0f246f0b89ee27bfb611965e64f611ac start on fixing issue 5570 64 bit ABI --- Comment #16 from github-bugzi...@puremagic.com 2012-05-07 12:29:45 PDT --- Commit pushed to master at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/f1039b341f2798f176dcf3c34019682d413ea863 start on fixing issue 5570 64 bit ABI -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 5570] 64 bit C ABI not followed for passing structs and complex numbers as function parameters
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570 --- Comment #15 from github-bugzi...@puremagic.com 2012-05-07 12:29:35 PDT --- Commit pushed to dmd-1.x at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/246f737c0f246f0b89ee27bfb611965e64f611ac start on fixing issue 5570 64 bit ABI -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 5570] 64 bit C ABI not followed for passing structs and complex numbers as function parameters
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570 --- Comment #17 from Johan Hernandez thepumpkin1...@gmail.com 2012-05-07 12:40:48 PDT --- I'm very happy to see some commits on this issue, this is really important!!! Walter++!!! -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 8060] New: xmmstore cannot allocate store for optimized operation that uses int and floats
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8060
Summary: xmmstore cannot allocate store for optimized operation
that uses int and floats
Product: D
Version: D1 D2
Platform: x86_64
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: DMD
AssignedTo: nob...@puremagic.com
ReportedBy: fa...@gmx.ch
--- Comment #0 from Fawzi Mohamed fa...@gmx.ch 2012-05-07 13:51:45 PDT ---
float invSqrt(float x) {
union fi {
float f;
int i;
}
fi v;
float xhalf = 0.5f * x;
v.f = x;
v.i = 0x5f375a86 - (v.i 1);
float y = x * v.f;
float z = y*(1.5f - xhalf * y * y);
return z;
}
or
float invSqrt(float x) {
float xhalf = 0.5f * x;
int i = *cast(int*)x;
i = 0x5f375a86 - (i 1);
x = *cast(float*)i;
x = x*(1.5f - xhalf * x * x);
return x;
}
fails with error
tym = xa
Internal error: ../ztc/cgxmm.c 567
when compiled with dmd 1.074 or 2.059 with -O
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 8060] xmmstore cannot allocate store for optimized operation that uses int and floats
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8060 --- Comment #1 from Fawzi Mohamed fa...@gmx.ch 2012-05-07 13:54:15 PDT --- well probably the optimizer should not expect such a thing to be possible. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 7832] opAssign does not get used for function parameters with a default value
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7832 William Moore nyphb...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||INVALID -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 8061] New: std.algorithm.joiner breaks when used with InputRangeObject
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8061
Summary: std.algorithm.joiner breaks when used with
InputRangeObject
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: Phobos
AssignedTo: nob...@puremagic.com
ReportedBy: nyphb...@gmail.com
--- Comment #0 from William Moore nyphb...@gmail.com 2012-05-07 15:37:10 PDT
---
When joining InputRangeObject-wrapped values, joiner fails to iterate past the
first Range provided in the RangeofRanges.
Example:
import std.range:joiner,ElementType,InputRange,inputRangeObject;
import std.conv:to;
import std.stdio:writefln;
void main() {
auto r = joiner([inputRangeObject(ab), inputRangeObject(cd)]);
writefln(%s, to!string(r));
}
When this is run, the only output is ab, not abcd as expected.
It's entirely possible that it's std.conv.to that's causing the problem as
well. I haven't dug deep enough into Phobos to know for sure.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 6199] [GSoC] Postblit not called when returning a reference to a by-value function.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6199 --- Comment #4 from github-bugzi...@puremagic.com 2012-05-07 18:10:39 PDT --- Commits pushed to master at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/9c03f1445966163321cf40456f35f83f534f2b1a fix Issue 6199 - [GSoC] Postblit not called when returning a reference to a by-value function. https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/7f18602f38082d8b837112fed1d5d10b222e3b87 Merge pull request #927 from 9rnsr/fix_postblit Issue 5737 6199 - fix postblit call with ref return -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 5737] postblit not called for locals initialized from ref functions
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5737 --- Comment #4 from github-bugzi...@puremagic.com 2012-05-07 18:10:45 PDT --- Commits pushed to master at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/70cbf1b9fb947a7abe920836e0b5746a39254ac0 fix Issue 5737 - postblit not called for locals initialized from ref functions https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/7f18602f38082d8b837112fed1d5d10b222e3b87 Merge pull request #927 from 9rnsr/fix_postblit Issue 5737 6199 - fix postblit call with ref return -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 5737] postblit not called for locals initialized from ref functions
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5737 Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||bugzi...@digitalmars.com Resolution||FIXED -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 6199] [GSoC] Postblit not called when returning a reference to a by-value function.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6199 Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||bugzi...@digitalmars.com Resolution||FIXED -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 6470] postblits not called on arrays of structs
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6470 --- Comment #2 from github-bugzi...@puremagic.com 2012-05-07 19:43:20 PDT --- Commit pushed to master at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/26aacf0b510d59f572122a55a9a74c071aab889c Issue 6470 - postblits not called on arrays of structs - Call postblits on array slice assign - Call postblits on array literal elements -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3703] static array assignment
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3703 --- Comment #2 from github-bugzi...@puremagic.com 2012-05-07 19:43:15 PDT --- Commit pushed to master at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/6dfdd2dd1552dfb9b66a35ab65afdcfe30630c0e Issue 3703 - static array assignment -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 6636] Destructors of static array elements are not called on function parameter
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6636 --- Comment #3 from github-bugzi...@puremagic.com 2012-05-07 19:43:26 PDT --- Commit pushed to master at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/57d7f41f82bac4efd05053b5ae23642b65ad18aa Issue 6636 - Destructors of static array elements are not called on function parameter Call dtor of static array parameter at function scope end. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 6637] Postblits of static array elements are not called on function argument
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6637 --- Comment #3 from github-bugzi...@puremagic.com 2012-05-07 19:43:30 PDT --- Commit pushed to master at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/2f09427e321e1587fdebc983f25f8b4c78cd5f0d Issue 6637 - Postblits of static array elements are not called on function argument call element postblits of static array on function argument -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4744] std.conv: string-enum doesn't look for longer match
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4744 --- Comment #3 from github-bugzi...@puremagic.com 2012-05-07 20:39:52 PDT --- Commits pushed to master at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/commit/07d34c1ae0b5283cf5bc22610d4401443549efaf Fix for BUG 4744, enum parsing will now test every member and select the one with the longest matching string https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/commit/36f5539e0a7315dee8e3613c540584857fc04008 Merge pull request #557 from Chabsf/master Issue 4744: std.conv: string-enum doesn't look for longer match -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3703] static array assignment
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3703 Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||bugzi...@digitalmars.com Resolution||FIXED -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 6470] postblits not called on arrays of structs
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6470 Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||bugzi...@digitalmars.com Resolution||FIXED -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 6636] Destructors of static array elements are not called on function parameter
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6636 Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||bugzi...@digitalmars.com Resolution||FIXED -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 6637] Postblits of static array elements are not called on function argument
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6637 Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||bugzi...@digitalmars.com Resolution||FIXED -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
