date:20091123

[Issue 3488] Segfault(expression.c): enum declared with struct static initializer

2009-11-23 Thread d-bugmail

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3488 --- Comment #4 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2009-11-23 00:23:22 PST --- PATCH: With the demise of struct initializers, it's not worth fixing properly. But DsymbolExp::semantic() should check for a null value anyway (it checks in other places

[Issue 2274] all static if typeof seriously wrong

2009-11-23 Thread d-bugmail

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2274 Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED

[Issue 2282] Struct copy-constructor should call opAssign

2009-11-23 Thread d-bugmail

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2282 Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Issue 3521] Optimized code access popped register

2009-11-23 Thread d-bugmail

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3521 Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clugd...@yahoo.com.au ---

[Issue 2282] Struct copy-constructor should call opAssign

2009-11-23 Thread d-bugmail

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2282 --- Comment #3 from Koroskin Denis 2kor...@gmail.com 2009-11-23 02:43:39 PST --- In D2, yes, but what about D1? -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because:

[Issue 2282] Struct copy-constructor should call opAssign

2009-11-23 Thread d-bugmail

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2282 --- Comment #4 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2009-11-23 03:00:24 PST --- (In reply to comment #3) In D2, yes, but what about D1? The spec is quite clear: The assignment operator cannot be overloaded for rvalues that can be implicitly cast

[Issue 2282] Struct copy-constructor should call opAssign

2009-11-23 Thread d-bugmail

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2282 --- Comment #5 from Koroskin Denis 2kor...@gmail.com 2009-11-23 03:15:55 PST --- Great, thanks! -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---

[Issue 3543] New: : ? operator can't find common type for interfaces

2009-11-23 Thread d-bugmail

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3543 Summary: : ? operator can't find common type for interfaces Product: D Version: 1.051 Platform: Other OS/Version: All Status: NEW Keywords: rejects-valid Severity:

[Issue 3543] : ? operator can't find common type for interfaces

2009-11-23 Thread d-bugmail

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3543 --- Comment #1 from nfx...@gmail.com 2009-11-23 03:27:52 PST --- This also fails if you're doing this with classes (just replace interface with class in the example above). With classes, this should definitely work, but it fails. -- Configure

[Issue 3544] optlink unexpected termination 0041338f

2009-11-23 Thread d-bugmail

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3544 --- Comment #1 from ante...@freemail.hu 2009-11-23 04:39:21 PST --- Created an attachment (id=515) the picture of the error -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail

[Issue 3544] New: optlink unexpected termination 0041338f

2009-11-23 Thread d-bugmail

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3544 Summary: optlink unexpected termination 0041338f Product: D Version: 1.051 Platform: x86 OS/Version: Windows Status: NEW Severity: critical Priority: P2

[Issue 3544] optlink unexpected termination 0041338f

2009-11-23 Thread d-bugmail

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3544 --- Comment #2 from ante...@freemail.hu 2009-11-23 04:41:33 PST --- The program uses a large compile-time generated function which seems to contribute to the problem. -- Configure issuemail: