outage (already over)
Sorry for the bugzilla outage a little while ago. The box got way overloaded. Should be all happy now.
Re: [Issue 3490] DMD Never Inlines Functions that Could Throw
On 7/9/2010 6:17 AM, d-bugm...@puremagic.com wrote: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3490 --- Comment #4 from Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com 2010-07-09 06:14:20 PDT --- (In reply to comment #3) undoing false dependency Can you elaborate a little on why having bug 859 as a tracker of all missing inline oportunities is a bad thing? Thanks Replying outside bugzilla, no reason to clutter up all those reports with more stuff unrelated to the specifics of the reports themselves. Using a real report as a tracker is almost always a bad idea. Using this case as an example and assuming that 859 was an inlining bug: What's the right thing to do when 859's issue is fixed but all the rest aren't? If it wasn't a tracker, the right thing would be to close 859 and move on. But trackers should only be closed when all the depends-on's are fixed. See the problem? The next reason that it's a bad idea is that 859 isn't a missed inline opportunity. The code in question is inlined. Something else in in play -- still looking into it. So, fixed or not, the depend-on's aren't accurate any more either.. or at least some aren't. I'm also of the general opinion that trackers aren't generally useful either, but in this case it goes beyond that. Inlining bugs are easy to locate with the search feature.. just search for all bugs with inline in the subject. Done. Easy. That help? Later, Brad
Re: Bugzilla upgrade: sometime tonight
Brad Roberts wrote: I'm going to bump bugzilla from 3.2.3 to 3.4.1 sometime tonight. It should only take a few minutes. After the update, you'll need to force refresh your browser to pick up updated .css and similar files. The update on the digitalmars c++ bugzilla instance went fast and easy, so I don't expect problems for the d bugzilla. (famous last words) Later, Brad Update completed and looks successful with some cursory examination. Don't forget, you'll likely have to shift-reload to pick up updates to cached files. Shout (via a post to the .bugs newsgroup or a bugzilla entry if you can) if anything seems particularly amiss. Later, Brad
Bugzilla upgrade: sometime tonight
I'm going to bump bugzilla from 3.2.3 to 3.4.1 sometime tonight. It should only take a few minutes. After the update, you'll need to force refresh your browser to pick up updated .css and similar files. The update on the digitalmars c++ bugzilla instance went fast and easy, so I don't expect problems for the d bugzilla. (famous last words) Later, Brad
Re: bugzilla changes
Jarrett Billingsley wrote: Thanks for your work on what has become an invaluable resource for the D community. Really, you do way too much for free :) Suggestions? Actually, I was thinking of an Order Pizza button. Thanks, but I do what I do because I enjoy doing it. That it's useful is reward enough for me. There's plenty of others who do far more. Later, Brad
volunteers?
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/buglist.cgi?action=wrapbug_file_loc=bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstrbug_id=bug_status=NEWbug_status=ASSIGNEDbug_status=REOPENEDbugidtype=includechfieldfrom=chfieldto=Nowchfieldvalue=email1=email2=emailassigned_to1=1emailassigned_to2=1emailcc2=1emailreporter2=1emailtype1=substringemailtype2=substringfield0-0-0=noopkeywords=keywords_type=allwordslong_desc=long_desc_type=substringproduct=Dshort_desc=short_desc_type=allwordssubstrtype0-0-0=noopvalue0-0-0=votes==version=unspecified That url lists all the open D bugs that have version == unassigned. It'd be nice if they had versions associated with them. If a couple of you guys each work through just a few of them each it shouldn't take long. There's 175 of them. Hey, and while you're there.. give 'em a quick read and see if they might be invalid, already fixed, or whatever. Thanks, Brad
Re: volunteers?
Brad Roberts wrote: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/buglist.cgi?action=wrapbug_file_loc=bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstrbug_id=bug_status=NEWbug_status=ASSIGNEDbug_status=REOPENEDbugidtype=includechfieldfrom=chfieldto=Nowchfieldvalue=email1=email2=emailassigned_to1=1emailassigned_to2=1emailcc2=1emailreporter2=1emailtype1=substringemailtype2=substringfield0-0-0=noopkeywords=keywords_type=allwordslong_desc=long_desc_type=substringproduct=Dshort_desc=short_desc_type=allwordssubstrtype0-0-0=noopvalue0-0-0=votes==version=unspecified That url lists all the open D bugs that have version == unassigned. It'd be nice if they had versions associated with them. If a couple of you guys each work through just a few of them each it shouldn't take long. There's 175 of them. Hey, and while you're there.. give 'em a quick read and see if they might be invalid, already fixed, or whatever. Thanks, Brad I suggest using 1.00 or 2.000 for bugs that are specific to one of those releases but not to a specific version w/in the series. I also created a future version for enhancement requests. I suspect that a number of the unspecified version reports are enhancement requests even though many have the priority set to normal. Later, Brad
Re: [Issue 2952] Segfault on exit when using array ops with arrays of doubles larger than 8 elements
d-bugm...@puremagic.com wrote: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2952 --- Comment #2 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2009-05-25 03:02:40 PDT --- I have fixed this but can't post it to the runtime source since dsource is down. In an earlier thread on one of the newsgroups, Sean expressed a preference to bugzilla based bug reports for druntime.
Re: Bugzilla Downtime
Brad Roberts wrote: Tonight I'm going to update bugzilla to the current release and move it to a new host. I'll put the existing copy in read-only mode at around 10 or 11pm Seattle time. The process shouldn't take all that long, but I'll estimate an hour just to give myself some padding time. Later, Brad Ok.. I've changed the dns entry to the new server, so as soon as it propagates around the world, the new site will be active. I'm sure it's not perfect yet.. but it's good enough to open up. Please file bug reports against puremagic.com if you find something wrong or missing. I haven't fully incorporated all of the customizations I'd made to the previous version, but at least the posting to the newsgroups part works again. Later, Brad
known bugzilla issue #1
I know I need to suppress the last couple lines of bugzilla posts with the Configure and why the mail is being received parts. How that part is generated changed a lot between the old and new versions of bugzilla so it'll take me a tad more work to fix that up. This part: -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- Later, Brad
bugzilla email
A while ago the inbound mail into bugzilla from replies to this group broke. I figured out why, but the fix wasn't pleasant -- the perl code wasn't compatible with a perl upgrade (5.8 - 5.10). The migration I did tonight ought to make it possible for me to put that mechanism back together.. however I figured I'd take a poll. Who found it useful and/or desirable? It's been disabled long enough that I figured I should see if it's worth re-instating. Thanks, Brad
Re: Bugzilla Downtime
Sean Kelly wrote: Jarrett Billingsley wrote: On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 7:37 AM, Nick Sabalausky a...@a.a wrote: Whooo, it's very pretty :) Indeed it is! Save for an apparent rendering problem with Firefox: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2959 Anyone else notice this? It's kind of a mess on Safari. I'll file a report :-) I don't see that problem at all using windows firefox 3.0.10. I suggest flushing your cache.. make sure you've got current .css files. Later, Brad
Bugzilla Downtime
Tonight I'm going to update bugzilla to the current release and move it to a new host. I'll put the existing copy in read-only mode at around 10 or 11pm Seattle time. The process shouldn't take all that long, but I'll estimate an hour just to give myself some padding time. Later, Brad
Re: [Issue 2493] link error trying to compile simple program
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2493 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |regression --- Comment #2 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-09 22:48 --- This is actually a regression For a regression, it'd be good to indicate what version didn't contain the bug. IE, it worked last at version X and broke starting at version Y. In this case, did it work at 2.020 and fail with 2.021? Thanks, Brad
