http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2451
Summary: Cannot add a Variant to associative array
Product: D
Version: 2.020
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Severity: critical
Priority: P2
C
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=701
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Inline asm using incorrect |Inline naked asm uses
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=493
--- Comment #7 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-13 13:36 ---
I don't think is a good idea either to make ldc as buggy as DMD just to be
compatible =)
--
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2452
Summary: Unimplemented method errors should show function
overload
Product: D
Version: 1.033
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Keywords: diagno
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1431
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Status
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1667
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1667
--- Comment #3 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-13 20:03 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Is this really a forward reference issue? There is no forward reference in
> the
> code. Moreover, under DMD 1.036 it generates a quite different
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=340
--- Comment #5 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-13 20:31 ---
There have been a few bugs listed here that aren't forward reference issues as
such, i.e. don't result from something being forward referenced, but
nonetheless have "forward de
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=340
--- Comment #6 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-13 21:30 ---
I think if you want to define forward references in the restricted classical
definition of "lexical precedence," then bugs like 1667 would not be covered by
this one. But it w
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2453
Summary: It is possible to create instances of abstract classes
with ClassInfo.create
Product: D
Version: 1.036
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=340
--- Comment #7 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-14 06:20 ---
I'm not sure what you mean by a semantic forward reference, but I guess you're
right about the basic essence of the bug.
> (funny - your last two comments were posted one year
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=633
--- Comment #1 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-14 07:01 ---
I see that the spec now says "typedef or enum" where previously it just said
"typedef", thus reducing this to issue 632. So should this be marked as a dupe
(and the summary of
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1653
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1807
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2454
Summary: tupleof(member) is incorrectly evaluated inside foreach
over members-tuple
Product: D
Version: 2.020
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2454
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2454
--- Comment #2 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-14 18:50 ---
My bad, I forgot attaching the expected and actual result. Here they are:
Expected output:
float
double
int
Actual output:
float
float
float
The tuple is ok, but foreach bo
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2454
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|tupleof(member) is |typeof(object) is
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2454
--- Comment #4 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-14 19:51 ---
What version?
version: 1026 // what codepad.org uses
float
double
int
--
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2454
--- Comment #5 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-14 19:54 ---
> Version: 2.020
--
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=929
--- Comment #16 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-14 21:55 ---
If Walter's looking for low-hanging fruit, it doesn't get much lower than this.
A 5-line diff? Why has this been open for almost 2 years, anyway?
--
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2326
--- Comment #1 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-14 22:13 ---
This only happens on D1.
--
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2455
Summary: Cannot use .ptr or .length in asm code
Product: D
Version: 1.011
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Severity: major
Priority: P2
Compone
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1125
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2326
--- Comment #2 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-15 06:41 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> This only happens on D1.
>
So? Does this mean that the bug is not considered harmful and thus wont be
fixed in D1?
--
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2326
--- Comment #3 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-15 08:14 ---
Yes, I would very much like to see this fixed in D1, especially since it's not
a spec change at all.
--
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2456
Summary: "cannot put catch statement inside finally block"
Product: D
Version: 1.030
Platform: PC
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: norm
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2457
Summary: Detecting circular module dependencies at compile time
Product: D
Version: 1.036
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Priority:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1748
--- Comment #3 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-15 22:04 ---
This isn't a straightforward fix after all. I've seen some situations in which
a string representation closer to what we would need is shown...
With structs, I'm seeing:
type
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1748
--- Comment #4 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-15 22:52 ---
Created an attachment (id=279)
--> (http://d.puremagic.com/issues/attachment.cgi?id=279&action=view)
Patch to add template parameters to class .stringof
--
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1748
--- Comment #5 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-15 22:54 ---
If you have a templated struct, it partially works already:
---
struct S(T) {}
S!(int) s;
pragma (msg, typeof(s).stringof); // prints S!(int)
pragma (msg, S!(int).stringof); /
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2458
Summary: Can't deduce sizeof inner struct inside a template mixin
Product: D
Version: 2.020
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1917
--- Comment #1 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-16 08:08 ---
I'm not able to reproduce this in dmd2.019 or ldc2, so I'm marking it as fixed.
--
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1917
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1918
--- Comment #1 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-16 08:22 ---
Okay, I've worked out how all this works.
__traits (getVirtualFunctions) gets all non-static methods.
__traits (isVirtualFunction) returns true iff the argument is a non-sta
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2457
--- Comment #1 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-16 11:08 ---
Without example code it is unlikely that this will get fixed. Add the code
which is failing and include the compilation options you are using. Extra
points will be awarded for
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2457
--- Comment #2 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-16 13:54 ---
[a.d]
module a;
import b;
static this(){}
void main(){}
[b.d]
module b;
import a;
static this(){}
[Command line]
$ rebuild a
$ ./a
object.Exception:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2457
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2306
--- Comment #3 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-17 21:36 ---
For a possible resolution to this, see
http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=79672.
It's a post by Andrei describing a second s
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2460
Summary: Ref functions can't be template functions.
Product: D
Version: 2.020
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: minor
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2265
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2333
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2461
Summary: Duplicate typedef (with different initializer) in module
has wrong value
Product: D
Version: 2.020
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
S
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2462
Summary: DMD creates a wrong DLL so loading a DLL in the context
of another Process via loadlibrary will crash the remote
process
Product: D
Version: 1.036
Platform
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2462
--- Comment #1 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-19 07:30 ---
I'm trying to load a DLL (written in D with tango) in the context of a remote
process.
It works fine with Windows System DLLs.
So it seems that DMD creates wrong DLL files.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2463
Summary: No line number in "statement is not reachable" warning
Product: D
Version: 1.036
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2461
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Keywords
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2423
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2463
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Keywords
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2306
--- Comment #4 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-19 20:07 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I'd disagree that scope dynamic arrays should be stack allocated. The
> int[variableSize] syntax for that is perfectly good, if Walter wants to
> i
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1856
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
BugsThisDependsOn
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2464
Summary: Correct error message causes incorrect error messages
Product: D
Version: 1.033
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Severity: minor
Priority: P2
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2464
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|minor |enhancement
--- Comment #1 fr
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=929
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1898
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Status
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=929
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2464
--- Comment #2 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-20 18:22 ---
This isn't a matter of compiler internals being messed up -- this is consistent
and, I believe, deliberate behavior. Unusual, but useful once you're used to
it.
Inserting a d
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2464
--- Comment #3 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-20 18:30 ---
Currently DMD gives an error type in this cases, which is just an alias to int.
It would be nice if it were a type that acted as an int, or anything else, but
didn't produce s
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=424
--- Comment #17 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-20 18:26 ---
Just got bitten by this one too. Voted!
--
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=424
--- Comment #18 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-20 18:53 ---
Are you (In reply to comment #17)
> Just got bitten by this one too. Voted!
>
Unfortunately I think the only real solution for this is a new linker.
Just out of curiosity,
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=424
--- Comment #19 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-20 19:23 ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> Are you (In reply to comment #17)
> > Just got bitten by this one too. Voted!
> >
>
> Unfortunately I think the only real solution for this is a
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2464
--- Comment #4 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-20 20:04 ---
re: #2 and #3: Good points, but this issue seems different to me. I understand
why the compiler reports extra errors on code that uses a previously undefined
variable:
char[]
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1903
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Status
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1904
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Keywords
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2464
--- Comment #5 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-20 20:37 ---
Ah, right. I see that in FuncExp::semantic there's:
---
if (global.errors)
{
if (!fd->type->next)
fd->type->next = Type::terror;
}
---
Which basically says "If t
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1910
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Status
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1914
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Keywords
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1931
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Severity
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1942
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1932
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Status
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1959
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Keywords
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1977
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Keywords
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1984
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Keywords
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2465
Summary: Wrong .stringof value for parameter type of a templated
function
Product: D
Version: 2.020
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Keywords:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1914
--- Comment #5 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-21 05:32 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> It seems that it's simply failing to initialise y correctly. Changing main to
When I looked at the assembly, I think (can't remember now) that y wa
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2466
Summary: -w error for homogeneous arithmetic is too stringent
Product: D
Version: 1.036
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1977
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2466
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1977
--- Comment #3 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-21 13:35 ---
Note that this also errors, and is provably correct.
byte b;
short s = b + b;
IMO, all arithmetic should be allowed on homogeneous operations. That is,
performing arithmeti
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2006
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Keywords
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2009
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Status
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1768
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1768
--- Comment #6 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-21 15:24 ---
*** Bug 2009 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2093
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2093
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #3 fro
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2025
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Keywords
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2093
--- Comment #4 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-22 00:39 ---
This is a known bug and is a major array design flow. Arrays has no determined
owner (the only one who can grow without a reallocation if capacity permits):
import std.stdio;
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2093
--- Comment #5 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-22 03:58 ---
I thought 'string' types were immutable and thus ...
s1.length = 0;
should fail as it updates the string (trucates it to zero characters).
--
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2467
Summary: strtol() is improperly declared
Product: D
Version: 1.030
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: Ph
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1977
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2093
--- Comment #6 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-22 06:45 ---
No, string is aliased to invariant(char)[], i.e. an array of invariant
characters. You can change its length (usually, decreasing) but not contents.
--
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1977
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|INVALID
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2093
--- Comment #7 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-22 08:43 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Currently an 'owner' is anyone who has a pointer to array's beginning:
>
> char[] s = "hello".dup;
> char[] s1 = s[0..4];
> s1 ~= "!";
> assert(s !
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1977
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Summary|integ
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2039
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2093
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2026
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Keywords
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2093
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|WONTFIX
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1977
--- Comment #7 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-22 10:59 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > It's not ridiculous at all. The compiler cannot tell what values will be
> > possibly passed to f, and the range of byt
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1977
--- Comment #8 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-22 11:04 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > It's not ridiculous at all. The compiler cannot tell what values
> > will be possibly passed to f, and the range of b
101 - 200 of 48765 matches
Mail list logo
