https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6681
Andrei Alexandrescu and...@erdani.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|2.059 |---
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6681
--- Comment #15 from github-bugzi...@puremagic.com 2012-03-15 18:30:16 PDT ---
Commit pushed to master at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6681
--- Comment #14 from github-bugzi...@puremagic.com 2012-03-14 20:16:07 PDT ---
Commit pushed to master at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6681
--- Comment #12 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2012-03-13 05:15:23 PDT ---
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/493
and then
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/803
--
Configure issuemail:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6681
--- Comment #13 from yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com 2012-03-13 23:32:59 EST ---
Thanks for doing this. I think my branch was still letting you return
partially uninitialized arrays/structs from ctfe. I also think the following
should work:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6681
--- Comment #10 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2012-03-03
21:30:50 PST ---
It's a compiler structural problem: there's no way to specify a
struct literal with missing fields.
I don't know about in CTFE, but in the rest of the
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6681
--- Comment #11 from yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com 2012-03-04 16:45:03 EST ---
(In reply to comment #10)
It's a compiler structural problem: there's no way to specify a
struct literal with missing fields.
I don't know about in CTFE, but in
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6681
yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6681
--- Comment #8 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2012-02-02 03:26:11 PST ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Ok, I'll take a look at it tomorrow unless you want it. I know there are at
least two places it checks for overlapping union initialization,
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6681
yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Platform|Other |All
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6681
--- Comment #5 from yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com 2012-02-02 00:02:06 EST ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Not exactly. It's a compiler structural problem: there's no way to specify a
struct literal with missing fields. Struct static initializers
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6681
--- Comment #6 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2012-02-01 07:13:36 PST ---
(In reply to comment #5)
(In reply to comment #4)
Not exactly. It's a compiler structural problem: there's no way to specify a
struct literal with missing fields.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6681
--- Comment #7 from yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com 2012-02-02 03:38:36 EST ---
Ok, I'll take a look at it tomorrow unless you want it. I know there are at
least two places it checks for overlapping union initialization, one in
expression.c and
13 matches
Mail list logo
