Matt Gamble wrote:
Ok, this has been submitted as a bug.
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18573
thank you.
On Wednesday, 7 March 2018 at 21:39:58 UTC, ketmar wrote:
Matt Gamble wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 March 2018 at 21:02:30 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
On 03/07/2018 09:09 PM, ag0aep6g wrote:
[...]
With `real` instead of `double` x86_64 is also affected.
Wow. Good to know I'm not crazy. I was afk for a
Matt Gamble wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 March 2018 at 21:02:30 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
On 03/07/2018 09:09 PM, ag0aep6g wrote:
double f() { return 1; }
void main()
{
cast(void) f();
cast(void) f();
cast(void) f();
cast(void) f();
cast(void) f();
cast(void) f();
On Wednesday, 7 March 2018 at 21:02:30 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
On 03/07/2018 09:09 PM, ag0aep6g wrote:
double f() { return 1; }
void main()
{
cast(void) f();
cast(void) f();
cast(void) f();
cast(void) f();
cast(void) f();
cast(void) f();
cast(void) f();
ag0aep6g wrote:
On 03/07/2018 09:09 PM, ag0aep6g wrote:
double f() { return 1; }
void main()
{
cast(void) f();
cast(void) f();
cast(void) f();
cast(void) f();
cast(void) f();
cast(void) f();
cast(void) f();
double b = 2;
assert(b == 2); /* fails;
On 03/07/2018 09:09 PM, ag0aep6g wrote:
double f() { return 1; }
void main()
{
cast(void) f();
cast(void) f();
cast(void) f();
cast(void) f();
cast(void) f();
cast(void) f();
cast(void) f();
double b = 2;
assert(b == 2); /* fails; should pass */
H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 10:21:42PM +0200, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
[...]
it looks like ignoring `double` result causes FPU stack imbalance
('cause compiler doesn't insert "FPU pop" instruction), and that
affects the computations.
on 64 bit it doesn't matter, 'cau
H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 10:21:42PM +0200, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
[...]
it looks like ignoring `double` result causes FPU stack imbalance
('cause compiler doesn't insert "FPU pop" instruction), and that
affects the computations.
on 64 bit it doesn't matter, 'cau
On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 10:21:42PM +0200, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
[...]
> it looks like ignoring `double` result causes FPU stack imbalance
> ('cause compiler doesn't insert "FPU pop" instruction), and that
> affects the computations.
>
> on 64 bit it doesn't matter, 'cause no FPU is
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
it seems that the only difference between `void` and `double` lambda is one
asm instruction: `fldl (%edi)`. it is presend in `double` labmda, and
absent in `void` lambda.
it looks like ignoring `double` result causes FPU stack imbalance ('cause
compiler doesn't
On 3/7/18 3:09 PM, ag0aep6g wrote:
On 03/07/2018 08:54 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Clearly there is some codegen issue here.
It's beautiful:
double f() { return 1; }
void main()
{
cast(void) f();
cast(void) f();
cast(void) f();
cast(void) f();
cast(void) f()
On 03/07/2018 08:54 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Looking at each, it looks like it does this:
cast(void) unaryFun!pred(r.front);
So I tried this:
auto pred = i => a[i] = a[i-1] + 2;
foreach(i; 1 .. a.length)
cast(void)pred(i);
And I see the -nan value. Remove the cast(void) and I don't
On 3/7/18 1:57 PM, Matt Gamble wrote:
This is a record for me with two 32bit vs 64bit issues in one day. Seems
to be a problem with using "each" under 32bit which can be fixed by
using foreach or switching to x64. Am I doing something wrong or is this
the second bug I've found today?
Below is
On 03/07/2018 10:57 AM, Matt Gamble wrote:
This is a record for me with two 32bit vs 64bit issues in one day. Seems
to be a problem with using "each" under 32bit which can be fixed by
using foreach or switching to x64. Am I doing something wrong or is this
the second bug I've found today?
Bel
14 matches
Mail list logo
