[Issue 3029] Bug in array value mangling rule
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3029 Andrei Alexandrescu and...@erdani.com changed: What|Removed |Added Version|2.030 |D2 --
[Issue 3029] Bug in array value mangling rule
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3029 --- Comment #9 from github-bugzi...@puremagic.com 2014-01-24 11:19:09 PST --- Commits pushed to master at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/24ae9f83b94227f758ae5b367b355ab309421e72 Remove 'awful hack' introduced when fixing issue 3029 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/533149070309231924cee30ddf1899151a097332 Merge pull request #3134 from yebblies/issue3029 Remove 'awful hack' introduced when fixing issue 3029 -- Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3029] Bug in array value mangling rule
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3029 yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||yebbl...@gmail.com --- Comment #8 from yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com 2012-02-22 02:18:23 EST --- What happened here? Are we really maintaining backwards compatibility in only the cases that _weren't_ buggy? What legacy compiled code base is this supposed to be supporting? I seriously doubt anyone expects to be able to use a new version of dmd without recompiling their code at this point. See expression.c:2128 -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3029] Bug in array value mangling rule
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3029 Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bugzi...@digitalmars.com --- Comment #3 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2010-02-05 19:27:30 PST --- changeset 370 -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3029] Bug in array value mangling rule
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3029 Brad Roberts bra...@puremagic.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bra...@puremagic.com --- Comment #4 from Brad Roberts bra...@puremagic.com 2010-02-05 19:33:46 PST --- Why keep the backwards compatibility in D2? -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3029] Bug in array value mangling rule
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3029 --- Comment #5 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2010-02-05 22:09:00 PST --- (In reply to comment #4) Why keep the backwards compatibility in D2? Yes. With things like the recent change to ModuleInfo, you can't even update the compiler one revision without recompiling. So I don't think we have to worry about D2 backwards compatibility for the next month (which is why it's crucial to get these types of bugs fixed now). -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3029] Bug in array value mangling rule
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3029
--- Comment #2 from Shin Fujishiro rsi...@gmail.com 2009-06-06 09:07:02 PDT
---
Another (possibly better) option is to fix the numeric literal mangling rule as
this:
Value:
i Number// positive numeric literal
i N Number // negative numeric literal
The prefix 'i' avoids the mangled-name collision. And this rule is consistent
with other literal mangling rules, which are prefixed by some character (e.g.
'e' for floating point literals).
Patch (expression.c):
void IntegerExp::toMangleBuffer(OutBuffer *buf)
{
if ((sinteger_t)value 0)
-buf-printf(N%jd, -value);
+buf-printf(iN%jd, -value);
else
-buf-printf(%jd, value);
+buf-printf(i%jd, value);
}
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
