https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2816
Walter Bright changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|1.042 |D1
--
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2816
Don changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2816
--- Comment #13 from Walter Bright 2009-12-31
11:11:36 PST ---
Fixed dmd 1.054 and 2.038
--
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=2816
Leandro Lucarella changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||llu...@gmail.com
--- Comment #12 f
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2816
--- Comment #11 from clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2009-04-18 17:13 ---
Found another bug in this patch. Should start the count from 0, not 1.
Otherwise you can get a segfault when the out-by-1 error shows up in the "only
show first and last
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2816
--- Comment #10 from shro8...@vandals.uidaho.edu 2009-04-09 12:33 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Note that it detects the recursive instantiation in foo!(), even though it is
> instantiated from three different places.
it would be
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2816
--- Comment #9 from clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2009-04-09 04:24 ---
Error messages generated from my patch for the code below:
bug.d(2): Error: static assert (0) is false
bug.d(9):instantiatied from here: bar!()
bug.d(14):
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2816
--- Comment #8 from clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2009-04-09 04:18 ---
Created an attachment (id=319)
--> (http://d.puremagic.com/issues/attachment.cgi?id=319&action=view)
patch for dmd2.028
I've adjusted the backtrace in two ways:
(1) disp
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2816
--- Comment #7 from clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2009-04-09 02:43 ---
Christian -- Thanks, this is fantastic!
I've modified it so that it detects recursive template instantiations -- this
dramatically reduces the size of the trace. A patch w
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2816
--- Comment #6 from kamm-removet...@incasoftware.de 2009-04-08 07:43
---
Created an attachment (id=318)
--> (http://d.puremagic.com/issues/attachment.cgi?id=318&action=view)
template instantiation trace patch
patch against DMD 1.04
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2816
--- Comment #5 from shro8...@vandals.uidaho.edu 2009-04-07 11:07 ---
For that matter, if template errors could all be given optional (some flag?)
stack traces (not just chained errors) that would be cool.
I'm thinking somthing like:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2816
--- Comment #4 from clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2009-04-07 10:47 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Don, LDC already implemented template instantiation traces. Check
> StaticAssert::semantic2 and TemplateInstance::printInstantiationTrace. I
> e
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2816
kamm-removet...@incasoftware.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comme
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2816
clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|patch |
--- Comment #2 from clug
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2816
--- Comment #1 from bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2009-04-07 04:21 ---
The static assert does give you file/line, so it does give context. But I'll
add the expression print, too.
But I think static assert errors should be fatal. They usua
15 matches
Mail list logo
