[Issue 1] Hello World

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|IN_PROGRESS |CONFIRMED Platform|x86

[Issue 2] New: Structs with toString() method not formatted properly

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2 Bug #: 2 Summary: Structs with toString() method not formatted properly Classification: Unclassified Product: GDC Version: development Platform: All OS/Version: All Stat

[Issue 3] New: GDC prints some diagnostic information to stderr instead of stdout

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3 Bug #: 3 Summary: GDC prints some diagnostic information to stderr instead of stdout Classification: Unclassified Product: GDC Version: development Platform: All

[Issue 3] GDC prints some diagnostic information to stderr instead of stdout

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ibuc...@gdcproject.org --- Comment #1 from I

[Issue 2] Structs with toString() method not formatted properly

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2 --- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw 2012-07-16 10:14:08 UTC --- Documentation on known differences should be updated. DMD on 64bit has a runtime library implementation that retrieves the next variadic argument based on it's TypeInfo and it's tsize().

[Issue 4] New: reverse allowed on string (gdc 4.6.3 !)

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4 Bug #: 4 Summary: reverse allowed on string (gdc 4.6.3 !) Classification: Unclassified Product: GDC Version: development Platform: x86 OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW

[Issue 1] Hello World

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1 Alex Rønne Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Issue 5] New: std.file: struct_stat64 wrong for ARM

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5 Bug #: 5 Summary: std.file: struct_stat64 wrong for ARM Classification: Unclassified Product: GDC Version: development Platform: ARM OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW

[Issue 5] std.file: struct_stat64 wrong for ARM

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5 Johannes Pfau changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Issue 5] std.file: struct_stat64 wrong for ARM

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ibuc...@gdcproject.org --- Comment #1 from I

[Issue 6] New: ARM: Illegal instruction in runnable/aliasthis.d and with -O2

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6 Bug #: 6 Summary: ARM: Illegal instruction in runnable/aliasthis.d and with -O2 Classification: Unclassified Product: GDC Version: development Platform: ARM OS/V

[Issue 6] ARM: Illegal instruction in runnable/aliasthis.d and with -O2

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6 --- Comment #1 from Johannes Pfau 2012-09-24 16:24:50 UTC --- Created attachment 2 --> http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=2 gdb backtrace -- Configure issuemail: http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You

[Issue 6] ARM: Illegal instruction in runnable/aliasthis.d and with -O2

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6 --- Comment #2 from Johannes Pfau 2012-09-24 16:25:18 UTC --- Created attachment 3 --> http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=3 gdc -v ouput / system info -- Configure issuemail: http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email

[Issue 6] ARM: Illegal instruction in runnable/aliasthis.d and with -O2

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6 Johannes Pfau changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #3 mime|application/octet-stream|text/plain type|

[Issue 6] ARM: Illegal instruction in runnable/aliasthis.d and with -O2

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6 --- Comment #3 from Johannes Pfau 2012-09-24 16:36:47 UTC --- Actually seems to happen for any assert or thrown Exception. I remember Exceptions where working some time ago, so this is probably an error in my gdc / gcc configuration. -- Configur

[Issue 6] ARM: Illegal instruction in runnable/aliasthis.d and with -O2

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6 --- Comment #4 from Iain Buclaw 2012-09-24 18:22:52 UTC --- As this occurs in a libgcc .S file, yes it does seem like a configuration problem let's have a look and see what causes that illegal instruction to be ran... -- Configure issuemail: htt

[Issue 6] ARM: Illegal instruction in runnable/aliasthis.d and with -O2

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6 --- Comment #5 from Iain Buclaw 2012-09-24 18:28:50 UTC --- That particular assembly code is intended for !__ARM_ARCH_6M__ systems. -- Configure issuemail: http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mai

[Issue 6] ARM: Illegal instruction in runnable/aliasthis.d and with -O2

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6 --- Comment #6 from Iain Buclaw 2012-09-24 18:34:46 UTC --- Having a look at gcc-4.8/gcc/config/arm/arm-arches.def Perhaps you need to reconfigure with --with-arch=armv6-m or armv6s-m for soft float. Regards Iain. -- Configure issuemail: http

[Issue 6] ARM: Illegal instruction in runnable/aliasthis.d and with -O2

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6 --- Comment #7 from Iain Buclaw 2012-09-24 18:36:22 UTC --- (In reply to comment #6) > Having a look at gcc-4.8/gcc/config/arm/arm-arches.def > > Perhaps you need to reconfigure with --with-arch=armv6-m or armv6s-m for soft > float. > At least

[Issue 6] ARM: Illegal instruction in runnable/aliasthis.d and with -O2

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6 --- Comment #8 from Johannes Pfau 2012-09-24 18:55:19 UTC --- No, I think it's a gdc bug. I think something recently broke the ARM EABI unwinder. The gcc executable from the same build as the gdc executable works. And the version (GNU_ARM_EABI_Unw

[Issue 6] ARM: Illegal instruction in runnable/aliasthis.d and with -O2

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6 Johannes Pfau changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Issue 7] New: ARM: runnable/aliasthis.d fails with -O2

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7 Bug #: 7 Summary: ARM: runnable/aliasthis.d fails with -O2 Classification: Unclassified Product: GDC Version: development Platform: ARM OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW

[Issue 7] ARM: runnable/aliasthis.d fails with -O2

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7 --- Comment #1 from Johannes Pfau 2012-09-25 09:07:37 UTC --- Created attachment 5 --> http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=5 system / compier information -- Configure issuemail: http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=ema

[Issue 8] New: ARM: runnable/arrayop.d fails: Wrong execution order

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8 Bug #: 8 Summary: ARM: runnable/arrayop.d fails: Wrong execution order Classification: Unclassified Product: GDC Version: development Platform: ARM OS/Version: Linux Sta

[Issue 8] ARM: runnable/arrayop.d fails: Wrong execution order

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8 --- Comment #1 from Johannes Pfau 2012-09-25 09:24:52 UTC --- Created attachment 7 --> http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7 system / compier information -- Configure issuemail: http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=ema

[Issue 9] New: ARM: runnable/builtin.d floating point equality fails

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9 Bug #: 9 Summary: ARM: runnable/builtin.d floating point equality fails Classification: Unclassified Product: GDC Version: development Platform: ARM OS/Version: Linux St

[Issue 10] New: ARM: runnable/opover2.d fails: xopEquals fallback aborts instead of throwing Exception

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10 Bug #: 10 Summary: ARM: runnable/opover2.d fails: xopEquals fallback aborts instead of throwing Exception Classification: Unclassified Product: GDC Version: development

[Issue 10] ARM: runnable/opover2.d fails: xopEquals fallback aborts instead of throwing Exception

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10 --- Comment #1 from Johannes Pfau 2012-09-25 10:47:18 UTC --- OK, this was indeed the cause. Removing pure nothrow from "equals_t equals" and "equals_t function(in void*, in void*) xopEquals;" fixes this issue. We could hack this in druntime, b

[Issue 11] New: ARM: runnable/test11.d Unsupported platform

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11 Bug #: 11 Summary: ARM: runnable/test11.d Unsupported platform Classification: Unclassified Product: GDC Version: development Platform: ARM OS/Version: Linux Status: NE

[Issue 11] ARM: runnable/test11.d Unsupported platform

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11 Johannes Pfau changed: What|Removed |Added CC||johannesp...@gmail.com AssignedTo

[Issue 12] New: ARM: runnable/test12.d Unsupported platform

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12 Bug #: 12 Summary: ARM: runnable/test12.d Unsupported platform Classification: Unclassified Product: GDC Version: development Platform: ARM OS/Version: Linux Status: NE

[Issue 12] ARM: runnable/test12.d Unsupported platform

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12 Johannes Pfau changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|ibuc...@gdcproject.org |johannesp...@gmail.com -- Configure issu

[Issue 13] New: ARM: can't cast _argptr / va_list to pointer

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13 Bug #: 13 Summary: ARM: can't cast _argptr / va_list to pointer Classification: Unclassified Product: GDC Version: development Platform: ARM OS/Version: Linux Status: N

[Issue 14] New: ARM: runnable/testmath.d Arm not precise enough?

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14 Bug #: 14 Summary: ARM: runnable/testmath.d Arm not precise enough? Classification: Unclassified Product: GDC Version: development Platform: ARM OS/Version: Linux Statu

[Issue 14] ARM: runnable/testmath.d Arm not precise enough?

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14 --- Comment #1 from Johannes Pfau 2012-09-25 12:13:08 UTC --- What is this test supposed to do? int exp; real mantissa = frexp(123.456, exp); assert(equals(mantissa * pow(2.0L, cast(real)exp), 123.456, 19)); equals: x = 67.

[Issue 11] ARM: runnable/test11.d Unsupported platform

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ibuc...@gdcproject.org --- Comment #1 from

[Issue 12] ARM: runnable/test12.d Unsupported platform

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ibuc...@gdcproject.org --- Comment #1 from

[Issue 14] ARM: runnable/testmath.d Arm not precise enough?

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14 --- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw 2012-09-25 16:53:49 UTC --- An alternate option could be to rethink the codegen for floating comparisons in GDC overall, as certain floating point comparisons fail in GDC x86/x86_64 too. Problem: Simply doing (A

[Issue 12] ARM: runnable/test12.d Unsupported platform

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12 --- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw 2012-09-25 19:49:32 UTC --- https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/1143/files -- Configure issuemail: http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because

[Issue 11] ARM: runnable/test11.d Unsupported platform

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11 --- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw 2012-09-25 19:49:49 UTC --- https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/1143/files -- Configure issuemail: http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because

[Issue 10] ARM: runnable/opover2.d fails: xopEquals fallback aborts instead of throwing Exception

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10 --- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw 2012-09-25 20:22:03 UTC --- Although I would have thought it to have the same behaviour, I can't seem to reproduce it on x86/x86_64. -- Configure issuemail: http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email

[Issue 13] ARM: can't cast _argptr / va_list to pointer

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13 --- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw 2012-09-25 20:31:59 UTC --- ARM va_list type is void* ARM EABI va_list type is {void*} As such, you need to be a little more creative about getting it's value the x86-way. byte *p = *cast(byte**)&argptr; byte b =

[Issue 10] ARM: runnable/opover2.d fails: xopEquals fallback aborts instead of throwing Exception

Andrej 2012-09-25 20:47:25 UTC --- Can someone please explain to me why the gdc bugzilla keeps emailing me all of a sudden? I have all email notifications disabled and I'm not on any CC list. -- Configure issuemail: http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are rece

[Issue 8] ARM: runnable/arrayop.d fails: Wrong execution order

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8 --- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw 2012-09-25 20:48:27 UTC --- You may think so, but this is actually not a bug, just a little known example of an x86-specific quirk. In D functions (thus, extern D) - everything should be evaluated left to right (LT

[Issue 10] ARM: runnable/opover2.d fails: xopEquals fallback aborts instead of throwing Exception

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10 --- Comment #4 from Iain Buclaw 2012-09-25 21:06:03 UTC --- I guess it's because it's attached to the D.gnu ML, has always been that way... D's bugzilla is attached to D.gnu too (for those few bugs still assigned to GDC). -- Configure issuemail

[Issue 10] ARM: runnable/opover2.d fails: xopEquals fallback aborts instead of throwing Exception

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10 --- Comment #5 from Andrej 2012-09-25 21:14:59 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) > I guess it's because it's attached to the D.gnu ML, has always been that > way... > D's bugzilla is attached to D.gnu too (for those few bugs still assigned to > G

[Issue 8] ARM: runnable/arrayop.d fails: Wrong execution order

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8 Alex Rønne Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||a...@lycus.org --- Comment #3 from A

[Issue 11] ARM: runnable/test11.d Unsupported platform

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11 Johannes Pfau changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Issue 12] ARM: runnable/test12.d Unsupported platform

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12 Johannes Pfau changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Issue 2] Structs with toString() method not formatted properly

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2 Johannes Pfau changed: What|Removed |Added CC||johannesp...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from

[Issue 10] ARM: runnable/opover2.d fails: xopEquals fallback aborts instead of throwing Exception

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10 --- Comment #6 from Johannes Pfau 2012-09-26 09:20:06 UTC --- @Iain: I forgot to explicitly state that, but the test case does indeed not fail on x86/x86-64, it only fails on ARM. It probably depends on the unwinder and/or exception ABI. -- Con

[Issue 13] ARM: can't cast _argptr / va_list to pointer

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13 --- Comment #2 from Johannes Pfau 2012-09-26 09:26:55 UTC --- So D doesn't make any guarantees that casting va_list to a pointer is portable, right? But what does that mean for the test suite? Change it to use the portable va_arg or is that test

[Issue 2] Structs with toString() method not formatted properly

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Issue 13] ARM: can't cast _argptr / va_list to pointer

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13 --- Comment #3 from Iain Buclaw 2012-09-26 13:34:12 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) > So D doesn't make any guarantees that casting va_list to a pointer is > portable, > right? > > But what does that mean for the test suite? Change it to use t

[Issue 14] ARM: runnable/testmath.d Arm not precise enough?

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14 Johannes Pfau changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|ibuc...@gdcpr

[Issue 8] ARM: runnable/arrayop.d fails: Wrong execution order

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8 --- Comment #4 from Johannes Pfau 2012-09-27 17:36:57 UTC --- For reference: Related discussion in D newsgroup: http://forum.dlang.org/thread/bniaxycuguviwfdto...@forum.dlang.org -- Configure issuemail: http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/userprefs.c

[Issue 14] ARM: runnable/testmath.d Arm not precise enough?

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ibuc...@gdcproject.org --- Comment #4 from

[Issue 9] ARM: runnable/builtin.d floating point equality fails

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9 Johannes Pfau changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|ibuc...@gdcpro

[Issue 13] ARM: can't cast _argptr / va_list to pointer

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13 Johannes Pfau changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|ibuc...@gdcpr

[Issue 5] std.file: struct_stat64 wrong for ARM

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5 --- Comment #2 from Johannes Pfau 2012-09-28 18:04:47 UTC --- https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/819 Got rid off all the old *64 functions. (struct_stat64 is actually deprecated). I still have to check whether druntime's stat_t

[Issue 14] ARM: runnable/testmath.d Arm not precise enough?

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14 Johannes Pfau changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Issue 1] Hello World

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1 --- Comment #7 from Iain Buclaw 2012-10-17 21:34:14 UTC --- Test -- Configure issuemail: http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are watching all issue changes.

[Issue 15] internal compiler error: in expand_expr_real_1, at expr.c:9266

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15 --- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw 2012-10-17 15:31:50 UTC --- . -- Configure issuemail: http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are watching all issue changes.

[Issue 1] Hello World

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added CC|a...@lycus.org | --- Comment #6 from Iain Buclaw 2012-10-17

[Issue 15] New: internal compiler error: in expand_expr_real_1, at expr.c:9266

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15 Bug #: 15 Summary: internal compiler error: in expand_expr_real_1, at expr.c:9266 Classification: Unclassified Product: GDC Version: 4.8.x Platform: x86_64 OS/V

[Issue 15] internal compiler error: in expand_expr_real_1, at expr.c:9266

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15 --- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw 2012-10-17 15:19:37 UTC --- It's entirely possible that it's a problem in the gcc backend. I've tested on a copy from 08/07/2012 and can't reproduce. Regards Iain -- Configure issuemail: http://gdcproject.org/b

[Issue 1] Hello World

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1 --- Comment #8 from Iain Buclaw 2012-10-17 21:59:28 UTC --- 42 -- Configure issuemail: http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are watching all issue changes.

[Issue 16] New: Programs that use std.parallelism.taskPool hang

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16 Bug #: 16 Summary: Programs that use std.parallelism.taskPool hang Classification: Unclassified Product: GDC Version: development Platform: x86_64 OS/Version: Linux Sta

[Issue 17] New: Nasty interface contract bug

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17 Bug #: 17 Summary: Nasty interface contract bug Classification: Unclassified Product: GDC Version: development Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Sever

[Issue 17] Nasty interface contract bug

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17 Alex Rønne Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||a...@lycus.org --- Comment #1 from

[Issue 15] internal compiler error: in expand_expr_real_1, at expr.c:9266

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15 --- Comment #3 from Iain Buclaw 2012-10-22 19:20:00 UTC --- On further analysis looks to be a custom static chain bug... In the map!() template, we emit this code: { struct MapResult __ctmp997 = {}; __ctmp.this = this; // 'this' is in a

[Issue 18] New: callgraph error (?) when using -fdebug and sort!del(some_array)

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18 Bug #: 18 Summary: callgraph error (?) when using -fdebug and sort!del(some_array) Classification: Unclassified Product: GDC Version: 4.7.x Platform: x86_64 OS/

[Issue 18] callgraph error (?) when using -fdebug and sort!del(some_array)

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18 lt.infiltra...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|blocker |major -- Configure issuemail:

[Issue 18] callgraph error (?) when using -fdebug and sort!del(some_array)

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18 --- Comment #1 from lt.infiltra...@gmail.com 2012-10-23 21:49:48 UTC --- Created attachment 9 --> http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9 gdc command and error -- Configure issuemail: http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=

[Issue 18] callgraph error (?) when using -fdebug and sort!del(some_array)

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18 --- Comment #2 from lt.infiltra...@gmail.com 2012-10-23 21:51:53 UTC --- Created attachment 10 --> http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10 gdc command and error for gdc from Debian's repo -- Configure issuemail: http://gdcproject.or

[Issue 18] callgraph error (?) when using -fdebug and sort!del(some_array)

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18 lt.infiltra...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lt.infiltra...@gmail.com -- Co

[Issue 18] callgraph error (?) when using -fdebug and sort!del(some_array)

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18 Roy Crihfield changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rscr...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Roy

[Issue 19] New: byte b; --b = b; // error: non-trivial conversion (int/byte) /w wrong line number

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19 Bug #: 19 Summary: byte b; --b = b; // error: non-trivial conversion (int/byte) /w wrong line number Classification: Unclassified Product: GDC Version: 4.7.x Platform:

[Issue 18] callgraph error (?) when using -fdebug and sort!del(some_array)

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Issue 15] internal compiler error: in expand_expr_real_1, at expr.c:9266

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Issue 20] New: internal compiler error: in expand_expr_real_1, at expr.c:9301

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20 Bug #: 20 Summary: internal compiler error: in expand_expr_real_1, at expr.c:9301 Classification: Unclassified Product: GDC Version: development Platform: x86_64

[Issue 20] internal compiler error: in expand_expr_real_1, at expr.c:9301

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20 --- Comment #1 from lt.infiltra...@gmail.com 2012-10-26 01:41:55 UTC --- Created attachment 12 --> http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12 gdc command and failure -- Configure issuemail: http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?

[Issue 20] internal compiler error: in expand_expr_real_1, at expr.c:9301

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20 Alex Rønne Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||a...@lycus.org --- Comment #2 from

[Issue 15] internal compiler error: in expand_expr_real_1, at expr.c:9266

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lt.infiltra...@gmail.com --- Comment #5 fro

[Issue 20] internal compiler error: in expand_expr_real_1, at expr.c:9301

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Issue 15] internal compiler error: in expand_expr_real_1, at expr.c:9266

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15 --- Comment #6 from deadalnix 2012-10-26 18:23:52 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) > https://github.com/D-Programming-GDC/GDC/commit/20c0b776702947a338afc953ba35234425994c65 So this is finally not related to dmd ? -- Configure issuemail: http:/

[Issue 21] New: ICE on calling function with delegate literal containing 'new'

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21 Bug #: 21 Summary: ICE on calling function with delegate literal containing 'new' Classification: Unclassified Product: GDC Version: 4.7.x Platform: x86_64 OS/V

[Issue 21] ICE on calling function with delegate literal containing 'new'

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21 --- Comment #1 from hst...@quickfur.ath.cx 2012-10-26 19:47:15 UTC --- Hmm. I managed to reproduce the bug with minimal command-line arguments: gdc -c veclist.d also produces the ICE. -- Configure issuemail: http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/userp

[Issue 22] New: Build fails with macro expansion failures for TARGET_ANDROID

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22 Bug #: 22 Summary: Build fails with macro expansion failures for TARGET_ANDROID Classification: Unclassified Product: GDC Version: development Platform: x86_64

[Issue 15] internal compiler error: in expand_expr_real_1, at expr.c:9266

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15 --- Comment #7 from Iain Buclaw 2012-10-27 00:55:49 UTC --- (In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #4) > > https://github.com/D-Programming-GDC/GDC/commit/20c0b776702947a338afc953ba35234425994c65 > > So this is finally not related to dm

[Issue 21] ICE on calling function with delegate literal containing 'new'

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21 --- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw 2012-10-27 00:57:35 UTC --- looks like an FE bug. Did you try DMD 2.060 first? -- Configure issuemail: http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---

[Issue 21] ICE on calling function with delegate literal containing 'new'

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21 --- Comment #3 from hst...@quickfur.ath.cx 2012-10-27 01:44:12 UTC --- This problem doesn't happen on DMD (or at least, it doesn't manifest itself), that's why I reported it against GDC instead of DMD. I just tried dmd 2.060 and it seems fine. --

[Issue 23] New: undefined reference to `_d_arrayappendcTX'

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23 Bug #: 23 Summary: undefined reference to `_d_arrayappendcTX' Classification: Unclassified Product: GDC Version: development Platform: x86_64 OS/Version: Linux Status:

[Issue 23] undefined reference to `_d_arrayappendcTX'

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23 --- Comment #1 from lt.infiltra...@gmail.com 2012-10-27 02:18:31 UTC --- Created attachment 14 --> http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14 gdc command and error message -- Configure issuemail: http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/userpref

[Issue 21] ICE on calling function with delegate literal containing 'new'

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21 --- Comment #4 from Iain Buclaw 2012-10-27 09:53:19 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > This problem doesn't happen on DMD (or at least, it doesn't manifest itself), > that's why I reported it against GDC instead of DMD. I just tried dmd 2.060 >

[Issue 19] byte b; --b = b; // error: non-trivial conversion (int/byte) /w wrong line number

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Issue 21] ICE on calling function with delegate literal containing 'new'

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21 hst...@quickfur.ath.cx changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Issue 13] ARM: can't cast _argptr / va_list to pointer

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13 Johannes Pfau changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Issue 22] Build fails with macro expansion failures for TARGET_ANDROID

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22 Johannes Pfau changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Issue 22] Build fails with macro expansion failures for TARGET_ANDROID

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22 --- Comment #2 from Johannes Pfau 2012-10-27 18:21:03 UTC --- Ermm, maybe the gcc TARGET_ANDROID macro expands to a runtime expression. This needs some more work then. -- Configure issuemail: http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=ema

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >