[Issue 5558] New: opIn_r not detected as method for 'in' in pointed struct

2011-02-10 Thread d-bugmail
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

[Issue 5558] opIn_r not detected as method for 'in' in pointed struct

2011-02-10 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5558 Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Issue 5559] New: A static down cast in Phobos

2011-02-10 Thread d-bugmail
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

[Issue 5369] Segfault with pure auto function in separate module

2011-02-10 Thread d-bugmail
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

[Issue 4373] Importing class with 'auto foo()' causes DMD Bus error

2011-02-10 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4373 Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Issue 5482] Crash with align(0)

2011-02-10 Thread d-bugmail
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

[Issue 5558] opIn_r not detected as method for 'in' in pointed struct

2011-02-10 Thread d-bugmail
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

[Issue 5482] Crash with align(0)

2011-02-10 Thread d-bugmail
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

[Issue 5560] New: unittests add code size when compiling with -lib and without -unittest

2011-02-10 Thread d-bugmail
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

[Issue 5561] New: Problem with map() that returns array contents

2011-02-10 Thread d-bugmail
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:

[Issue 5490] DMDFE: Slim down warnings generated by GCC

2011-02-10 Thread d-bugmail
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:

[Issue 5490] DMDFE: Slim down warnings generated by GCC

2011-02-10 Thread d-bugmail
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:

[Issue 5490] DMDFE: Slim down warnings generated by GCC

2011-02-10 Thread d-bugmail
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:

[Issue 5490] DMDFE: Slim down warnings generated by GCC

2011-02-10 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5490 bearophile_h...@eml.cc changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bearophile_h...@eml.cc ---

[Issue 5490] DMDFE: Slim down warnings generated by GCC

2011-02-10 Thread d-bugmail
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:

[Issue 5490] DMDFE: Slim down warnings generated by GCC

2011-02-10 Thread d-bugmail
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).

[Issue 5490] DMDFE: Slim down warnings generated by GCC

2011-02-10 Thread d-bugmail
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

[Issue 5490] DMDFE: Slim down warnings generated by GCC

2011-02-10 Thread d-bugmail
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

[Issue 5556] [64-bit] Wrong Implicit Conversion to Double

2011-02-10 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5556 Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED