http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5558
Summary: opIn_r not detected as method for 'in' in pointed
struct
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: x86
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5558
Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5559
Summary: A static down cast in Phobos
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Keywords: patch
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P2
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5369
--- Comment #3 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2011-02-10 12:41:17 PST ---
Not confirmed -- cannot reproduce on Windows. Maybe Linux-specific?
On Windows, I just get:
test.d(9): Error: forward reference to foo
But no segfault.
--
Configure
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4373
Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5482
--- Comment #1 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2011-02-10 12:54:55 PST ---
Cannot reproduce.
The second case gives a runtime access violation, but neither example causes a
compiler segfault.
Is align(0) really valid? I don't think it makes
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5558
--- Comment #3 from Denis Derman denis.s...@gmail.com 2011-02-10 13:28:26 PST
---
(In reply to comment #2)
Actually, I feel that it should work on both sides. The spec states that the
compiler rewrites for example a + b as:
try
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5482
--- Comment #2 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-02-10 13:54:34 PST ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Cannot reproduce.
You are right, to crash is the compiled program (with DMD 2.051 on Windows).
The second case gives a runtime access
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5560
Summary: unittests add code size when compiling with -lib and
without -unittest
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: Other
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5561
Summary: Problem with map() that returns array contents
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: x86
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5490
--- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw ibuc...@ubuntu.com 2011-02-10 15:01:12 PST ---
Created an attachment (id=902)
ambiguous 'else' patch
Patch for D2FE: suggest explicit braces to avoid ambiguous 'else'
--
Configure issuemail:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5490
--- Comment #3 from Iain Buclaw ibuc...@ubuntu.com 2011-02-10 15:03:39 PST ---
Created an attachment (id=903)
always false patch
Patch for D2FE: comparison of unsigned expression 0 is always false
--
Configure issuemail:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5490
--- Comment #4 from Iain Buclaw ibuc...@ubuntu.com 2011-02-10 15:06:37 PST ---
Created an attachment (id=904)
defined not used patch
Patch for D2FE: ‘zero’ defined but not used
--
Configure issuemail:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5490
bearophile_h...@eml.cc changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bearophile_h...@eml.cc
---
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5490
--- Comment #6 from Iain Buclaw ibuc...@ubuntu.com 2011-02-10 15:19:39 PST ---
Created an attachment (id=905)
unused parm header patch
Patch for D2FE: 'unused parameter' emitted from headers.
--
Configure issuemail:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5490
--- Comment #7 from Iain Buclaw ibuc...@ubuntu.com 2011-02-10 15:24:21 PST ---
Created an attachment (id=906)
unhandled enum patch
Patch for D2FE: enumeration value not handled in switch
(Last in small batch, and largest of the lot).
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5490
--- Comment #8 from Iain Buclaw ibuc...@ubuntu.com 2011-02-10 15:30:21 PST ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Wonderful! See bugs 4375 and bug 5539
These just address warnings emitted from GCC when building DMD with '-Wall
-Wextra', and don't
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5490
--- Comment #9 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-02-10 15:36:39 PST ---
(In reply to comment #8)
These just address warnings emitted from GCC when building DMD with '-Wall
-Wextra', and don't address actually putting these warnings into DMD
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5556
Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
19 matches
Mail list logo