[Issue 4521] Array-wise assignment on unallocated array is accepted

2010-07-28 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4521 bearophile_h...@eml.cc changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bearophile_h...@eml.cc ---

[Issue 4521] Array-wise assignment on unallocated array is accepted

2010-07-28 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4521 --- Comment #4 from Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com 2010-07-28 05:55:29 PDT --- But isn't there a difference between arrays that had all of their elements removed and arrays that have not yet been allocated in the first place? I

[Issue 4521] Array-wise assignment on unallocated array is accepted

2010-07-28 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4521 --- Comment #5 from Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com 2010-07-28 06:38:07 PDT --- Actually I think I'm confusing myself with how dynamic allocation works. I thought the dynamic array always have to be called with new, but it appears I

[Issue 3935] opBinary is instantiated with =

2010-07-28 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3935 Trass3r mrmoc...@gmx.de changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #3 from

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

2010-07-28 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 nfx...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #696 is|0 |1 obsolete|

[Issue 4521] Array-wise assignment on unallocated array is accepted

2010-07-28 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4521 bearophile_h...@eml.cc changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Issue 4522] Write outputs Unicode incorrectly (on Windows)

2010-07-28 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4522 Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Issue 2742] std.stdio assumes console works in utf-8

2010-07-28 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2742 Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Issue 4520] add support for //! style documentation comments

2010-07-28 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4520 --- Comment #6 from Sobirari Muhomori dfj1es...@sneakemail.com 2010-07-28 11:24:39 PDT --- I'm afraid, it's useless. Doxygen uses its own markup and macros, they will be treated as plain text in ddoc comments. It's useless. -- Configure

[Issue 4516] forward declaration of enum not supported

2010-07-28 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4516 --- Comment #3 from Sobirari Muhomori dfj1es...@sneakemail.com 2010-07-28 11:41:50 PDT --- See bug 1160 -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---

[Issue 4397] const/CTFE does not work

2010-07-28 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4397 --- Comment #4 from Sobirari Muhomori dfj1es...@sneakemail.com 2010-07-28 12:04:59 PDT --- Shouldn't literals be immutable and the code - invalid? -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

2010-07-28 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #61 from Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com 2010-07-28 12:23:01 PDT --- (In reply to comment #60) Created an attachment (id=701) [details] D1 - patch for Tango's runtime to enable precise GC scanning - lots of nasty

[Issue 4397] const/CTFE does not work

2010-07-28 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4397 --- Comment #5 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2010-07-28 12:29:57 PDT --- (In reply to comment #4) Shouldn't literals be immutable and the code - invalid? I think they *should*. I argued strongly for immutable array literals. But I lost. So

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

2010-07-28 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #62 from nfx...@gmail.com 2010-07-28 12:49:49 PDT --- (In reply to comment #61) Even when I agree that the GC needs a lot of refactoring, I don't think it's a good idea to include it in this patch, it makes much harder to

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

2010-07-28 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #63 from Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com 2010-07-28 12:57:35 PDT --- (In reply to comment #60) - explicitly support SENTINEL (I have no idea why the code apparently worked with SENTINEL enabled; at least it should have

[Issue 3463] Integrate Precise Heap Scanning Into the GC

2010-07-28 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463 --- Comment #64 from Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com 2010-07-28 13:04:07 PDT --- (In reply to comment #62) (In reply to comment #61) Even when I agree that the GC needs a lot of refactoring, I don't think it's a good idea to include

[Issue 4397] const/CTFE does not work

2010-07-28 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4397 --- Comment #6 from nfx...@gmail.com 2010-07-28 13:05:25 PDT --- It's not valid. This is a systems programming language, and the compiler can't just randomly insert memory allocations. What if you wrote a kernel in D? I insist on the wrong-code

[Issue 4397] const/CTFE does not work

2010-07-28 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4397 --- Comment #7 from nfx...@gmail.com 2010-07-28 13:06:29 PDT --- and the compiler can't just randomly insert memory allocations. Add that are not supposed to be there. -- Configure issuemail:

[Issue 1418] tupleof bug on nested classes

2010-07-28 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1418 Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #1 from

[Issue 2454] typeof(object) is incorrectly evaluated

2010-07-28 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2454 Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Issue 4329] Do not show error messages that refer to __error

2010-07-28 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4329 --- Comment #9 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2010-07-28 14:13:30 PDT --- One case, dmd 2.047: void main() { auto x = foo.bar!(); } test.d(2): Error: undefined identifier foo test.d(2): Error: __error isn't a template -- Configure

[Issue 4526] New: dmd crash with writeln of functions

2010-07-28 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4526 Summary: dmd crash with writeln of functions Product: D Version: D2 Platform: x86 OS/Version: Windows Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component:

[Issue 4526] dmd crash with writeln of functions

2010-07-28 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4526 bearophile_h...@eml.cc changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Issue 4397] const/CTFE does not work

2010-07-28 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4397 --- Comment #8 from Sobirari Muhomori dfj1es...@sneakemail.com 2010-07-28 19:57:40 PDT --- Well... there can be a problem with immutable literals because immutability is transitive... hmm... Even if literals aren't immutable, compiler can