Re: Inexplicable LDC vs GDC speed difference

On 22 February 2013 18:59, Joseph Rushton Wakeling < joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net> wrote: > On 02/19/2013 09:34 AM, Johannes Pfau wrote: > >> I posted this to our bugzilla, I'm not sure if I'll have the time to >> look at this one. >> >> http://gdcproject.org/**bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37

Re: Inexplicable LDC vs GDC speed difference

On 02/19/2013 09:34 AM, Johannes Pfau wrote: I posted this to our bugzilla, I'm not sure if I'll have the time to look at this one. http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37 Just to note -- with your pull request #50 now included in GDC, things speed up very slightly. Removing the co

Re: GDC compiler crash -- latest GitHub source built against gcc-snapshot-20130209

On 02/22/2013 06:58 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote: Actually, halt that right now... I see I've missed a backslash in one of the makefiles... You may pull and continue. Thanks :-)

Re: GDC compiler crash -- latest GitHub source built against gcc-snapshot-20130209

On 22 February 2013 17:55, Iain Buclaw wrote: > On 22 February 2013 17:54, Joseph Rushton Wakeling < > joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net> wrote: > >> On 02/22/2013 06:47 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote: >> >>> Not sure if your copy is fresh enough. :) >>> >> >> Was freshly pulled from GitHub at the time of buil

Re: GDC compiler crash -- latest GitHub source built against gcc-snapshot-20130209

On 22 February 2013 17:54, Joseph Rushton Wakeling < joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net> wrote: > On 02/22/2013 06:47 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote: > >> Not sure if your copy is fresh enough. :) >> > > Was freshly pulled from GitHub at the time of building, but I see a new > patch since then. Will rebuild and

Re: GDC compiler crash -- latest GitHub source built against gcc-snapshot-20130209

On 02/22/2013 06:47 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote: Not sure if your copy is fresh enough. :) Was freshly pulled from GitHub at the time of building, but I see a new patch since then. Will rebuild and see how it goes :-)

[Issue 38] gdc --version should indicate D version in use

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38 --- Comment #3 from Iain Buclaw 2013-02-22 17:51:31 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) > I thought you might say that -- I presume it's related to GCC policy? There is no way to describe the language supported by GCC in terms of a specific version

Re: GDC compiler crash -- latest GitHub source built against gcc-snapshot-20130209

On 22 February 2013 17:39, Joseph Rushton Wakeling < joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net> wrote: > On 02/15/2013 09:14 AM, Johannes Pfau wrote: > >> Is it possible that the Makefile doesn't build core.bitop? >> https://github.com/D-**Programming-GDC/GDC/blob/** >> master/libphobos/libdruntime/**Makefile.

[Issue 38] gdc --version should indicate D version in use

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38 --- Comment #2 from Joe Wakeling 2013-02-22 17:45:11 UTC --- I thought you might say that -- I presume it's related to GCC policy? -- Configure issuemail: http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mai

[Issue 38] gdc --version should indicate D version in use

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38 --- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw 2013-02-22 17:43:19 UTC --- For gdmd, maybe. For gdc, probably not. -- Configure issuemail: http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are watc

Re: GDC compiler crash -- latest GitHub source built against gcc-snapshot-20130209

On 02/15/2013 09:14 AM, Johannes Pfau wrote: Is it possible that the Makefile doesn't build core.bitop? https://github.com/D-Programming-GDC/GDC/blob/master/libphobos/libdruntime/Makefile.am#L67 I have what looks like a similar issue (but different part of core) with a build off the latest Git

[Issue 38] New: gdc --version should indicate D version in use

http://gdcproject.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38 Bug #: 38 Summary: gdc --version should indicate D version in use Classification: Unclassified Product: GDC Version: development Platform: x86_64 OS/Version: All Status