Re: testsuite: optimization dependent test

2013-03-26 Thread Iain Buclaw
On 26 March 2013 18:30, Johannes Pfau wrote: > Am Mon, 25 Mar 2013 19:26:10 + > schrieb Iain Buclaw : > > > On 25 March 2013 18:36, Johannes Pfau wrote: > > > > > In runnable/test42.d test7290 checks if a scope delegate is really > > > allocated on the stack. To verify this it obtains the EB

Re: GDC-4.9 in development

2013-03-26 Thread Joseph Rushton Wakeling
On 03/26/2013 07:13 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote: > That's good news! I've been unable to get 4.8 to build in my Debian > system (probably due to some system- or configuration-specific breakages > somewhere... Debian multiarch isn't playing nice with GCC's build > scripts). Having the latest frontend avail

Re: GDC-4.9 in development

2013-03-26 Thread H. S. Teoh
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 07:06:30PM +0100, Johannes Pfau wrote: > Am Tue, 26 Mar 2013 17:36:16 + > schrieb Iain Buclaw : > > > > > > > > > Guaranteed is not the right word, but future releases of the frontend > > will be present only on 4.9. Though, people are free to backport to > > 4.8 or 4.

Re: testsuite: optimization dependent test

2013-03-26 Thread Johannes Pfau
Am Mon, 25 Mar 2013 19:26:10 + schrieb Iain Buclaw : > On 25 March 2013 18:36, Johannes Pfau wrote: > > > In runnable/test42.d test7290 checks if a scope delegate is really > > allocated on the stack. To verify this it obtains the EBP pointer > > and compares that to the delegates .ptr. > >

Re: GDC-4.9 in development

2013-03-26 Thread Johannes Pfau
Am Tue, 26 Mar 2013 17:36:16 + schrieb Iain Buclaw : > > > > > Guaranteed is not the right word, but future releases of the frontend > will be present only on 4.9. Though, people are free to backport to > 4.8 or 4.7, as Johannes has done in the past. FYI I'll also try to continue updating th

Re: GDC-4.9 in development

2013-03-26 Thread Iain Buclaw
On 26 March 2013 16:09, Joseph Rushton Wakeling < joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net> wrote: > On 03/26/2013 03:44 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote: > > This is why there are gdc-4.7, gdc-4.8 branches. They are there to be > > guaranteed to work with those gcc releases. There won't be any support > for > > multi

Re: GDC-4.9 in development

2013-03-26 Thread Joseph Rushton Wakeling
On 03/26/2013 03:44 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote: > This is why there are gdc-4.7, gdc-4.8 branches. They are there to be > guaranteed to work with those gcc releases. There won't be any support for > multiple gcc versions in one source. I think you've misunderstood me (although I don't think I express

Re: GDC-4.9 in development

2013-03-26 Thread Iain Buclaw
On 26 March 2013 12:37, Joseph Rushton Wakeling < joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net> wrote: > On 03/23/2013 01:13 PM, Manu wrote: > > Will switching to 4.9 make it harder to support all the 4.8 (and below) > cross > > compilers out there? Like the console toolchains. > > Also ... how will that affect t

Re: GDC-4.9 in development

2013-03-26 Thread Joseph Rushton Wakeling
On 03/23/2013 01:13 PM, Manu wrote: > Will switching to 4.9 make it harder to support all the 4.8 (and below) cross > compilers out there? Like the console toolchains. Also ... how will that affect the ability to compile on Ubuntu using gcc-snapshot? Working on alpha/beta 13.04 that package has c

Re: CTFE formatting of floating point values

2013-03-26 Thread Johannes Pfau
Am Mon, 25 Mar 2013 19:03:19 + schrieb Iain Buclaw : > On 25 March 2013 18:31, Johannes Pfau wrote: > > > I think this is a known issue: > > DMD expects real.stringof to return a string in the %g format. > > However the GCC function used for formatting real numbers always > > returns the %e