http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5553
Jonathan M Davis changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6557
bearophile_h...@eml.cc changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6634
Summary: std.path.globMatch throws wrong assertion
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: Other
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Severity: regression
Priority: P2
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3659
Kenji Hara changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #10 from Kenji Hara 20
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6629
timon.g...@gmx.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6631
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Panteleev 2011-09-09
05:27:48 PDT ---
Note that adding "shared" to the main module constructor doesn't change the
situation.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- Y
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6635
Summary: std.conv.emplace: enforcement is too weak
Product: D
Version: unspecified
Platform: Other
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6629
timon.g...@gmx.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #3 from timon.g..
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6632
zeljkog changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeljko@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from zel
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6632
--- Comment #2 from zeljkog 2011-09-09 15:44:55 CEST ---
Sorry, it's another issue.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6630
Kenji Hara changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch, wrong-code
--- Comment #1 from Ken
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5252
--- Comment #1 from Kenji Hara 2011-09-09 07:59:31 PDT ---
Maybe this issue was fixed by pure nothrow inference feature.
In 2.055, that code can compile.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- Y
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6521
Kenji Hara changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6631
--- Comment #3 from Steven Schveighoffer 2011-09-09
08:05:25 PDT ---
Right, what I was saying though is that all shared ctors are run before all
non-shared ones. So it is very surprising that a shared ctor has *not* been
run before a non-shar
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4972
Kenji Hara changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6636
Summary: Destructors of static array elements are not called on
function parameter
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severi
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6637
Summary: Postblits of static array elements are not called on
function argument
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6470
Kenji Hara changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #1 from Kenji Hara 201
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2356
Kenji Hara changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #4 from Kenji Hara 201
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3703
Kenji Hara changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid, patch
--- Comment #1 fro
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5290
Kenji Hara changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #1 from Kenji Hara 201
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6636
Kenji Hara changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch, wrong-code
--- Comment #1 from Ken
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6637
Kenji Hara changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch, wrong-code
--- Comment #1 from Ken
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2356
--- Comment #5 from Kenji Hara 2011-09-09 09:36:49 PDT ---
After applying my patch, the sample code generates like follows:
(output of ddbg in 64-bit Windows 7)
c:\d\test.d:1 void main()
00402010: c80center 0xc, 0x0
c:\d\te
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5252
bearophile_h...@eml.cc changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
Kenji Hara changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #1 from Kenji Hara 201
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5290
bearophile_h...@eml.cc changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bearophile_h...@eml.cc
--- Com
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5290
--- Comment #3 from Kenji Hara 2011-09-09 10:40:55 PDT ---
Pull 375 does not support `int[$] = [1, 2, 3];`.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5290
--- Comment #4 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-09-09 11:00:10 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Pull 375 does not support `int[$] = [1, 2, 3];`.
OK. This is expected.
Currenly DMD runs code like this (I don't like this, but this is working a
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5290
--- Comment #5 from Kenji Hara 2011-09-09 11:23:57 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> int[3] arr = [1, 2];
> void main() {}
>
> I presume Pull 375 lets this kind of code pass, right?
??? Pull 375 rejects statically above code, it is expected b
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6638
Summary: Suggestions/error messages for misuses of for/foreach
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: enhan
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6296
Denis changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Assertion failure: '0' on |Assertion failure: '0' on
|li
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5290
--- Comment #6 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-09-09 11:31:56 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> ??? Pull 375 rejects statically above code, it is expected behavior from this
> issue.
I see. I suggest you to read the whole thread of bug 3849.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5290
--- Comment #7 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-09-09 11:34:38 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Code like the following is working as designed, so if your patch refuses this
> code, then your patch is implementing an enhancement too (it means
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5888
Denis changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5290
--- Comment #8 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-09-09 11:52:16 PDT ---
See also:
http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=144210
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?t
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4374
Walter Bright changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugzi...@digitalmars.com
Seve
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5926
Denis changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P5
Severity|major
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6296
Denis changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Severity|blocker
39 matches
Mail list logo