[Issue 942] a delegate defaults to 8 byte alignment when 4 byte is sufficient
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=942 --- Comment #9 from nfx...@gmail.com 2010-08-16 09:56:25 PDT --- (In reply to comment #7) > Note that there's nothing still open about this particular bug: Walter said > no. Walter is wrong and the argument of binary compatibility is ridiculous. Little issues like these should be resolved as quickly as possible because they are annoying and only cause headaches for everyone. Maybe comment #5 isn't so wrong here. There are many more issues similar to this bug report, and unlike this bug, cause actual problems in practice. But Walter doesn't seem to care. Sucks for the user, huh? > Nonetheless, the presence of bugs like bug 3398, which was only recently > fixed, > does mean it's rather naive to think that the ABI is completely stable at > present. There you say it. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 942] a delegate defaults to 8 byte alignment when 4 byte is sufficient
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=942 --- Comment #8 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2010-08-16 04:51:09 PDT --- Don: > But reopening a WONTFIX bug just because you don't like the answer is inappropriate. Frankly, I think it was exceedingly rude. I have just added a comment. I have not reopened it. I think that adding a comment doesn't reopen the bug, so someone else has done it. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 942] a delegate defaults to 8 byte alignment when 4 byte is sufficient
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=942 --- Comment #7 from Don 2010-08-16 00:03:50 PDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > Answer to comment 3: It's true that WONTFIX from Walter are quite uncommon. > But > here no enough explanations are given to why this change would break backwards > compatibility. So I think it's positive to have a bit of some more discussion > here. Yes. But reopening a WONTFIX bug just because you don't like the answer is inappropriate. Frankly, I think it was exceedingly rude. Note that there's nothing still open about this particular bug: Walter said no. The deeper problem is the absence of a roadmap. Better would be to create a bug report about the unambiguous state of the ABI. Note that this is a particularly dangerous breaking of the ABI: it silently changes the generated code without warning. This makes it quite different to things like name mangling changes, which always generate linking errors. Nonetheless, the presence of bugs like bug 3398, which was only recently fixed, does mean it's rather naive to think that the ABI is completely stable at present. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 942] a delegate defaults to 8 byte alignment when 4 byte is sufficient
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=942 bearophile_h...@eml.cc changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bearophile_h...@eml.cc --- Comment #6 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2010-08-15 15:45:05 PDT --- Answer to comment 3: It's true that WONTFIX from Walter are quite uncommon. But here no enough explanations are given to why this change would break backwards compatibility. So I think it's positive to have a bit of some more discussion here. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 942] a delegate defaults to 8 byte alignment when 4 byte is sufficient
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=942 --- Comment #5 from Mark Guidarelli 2010-08-13 23:52:24 PDT --- I have long ago abandoned using D. The fact that it took 3+ years to close this bug (incorrectly I might add) validates I made the correct choice. D is nothing more than a play-thing for Walter, no serious commercial work will ever be shipped using it. I submitted many bug reports and patches all of which were ignored by Walter. I will spend my time improving viable projects like LLVM and Google's Go. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 942] a delegate defaults to 8 byte alignment when 4 byte is sufficient
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=942 nfx...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nfx...@gmail.com --- Comment #4 from nfx...@gmail.com 2010-08-13 22:58:30 PDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > Doing this fix would break backwards compatibility, so I don't think this can > be changed at this point. What backward compatibility? Show me the D code that can't simply be recompiled using a fixed ABI. Please be reminded that this would create stupid special cases in alternative compiler implementations AND C headers which try to use D types containing delegates. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 942] a delegate defaults to 8 byte alignment when 4 byte is sufficient
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=942 Don changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED CC||clugd...@yahoo.com.au Resolution||WONTFIX --- Comment #3 from Don 2010-08-13 22:35:16 PDT --- Cases where Walter closes bugs as WONTFIX are so rare, that you have to respect that. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
