Re: version statement problem in gdc

On 2013-04-08 22:17, Iain Buclaw wrote: On 8 April 2013 17:55, John Colvin So, overall, it's not gonna happen unless dmd changes its implementation of inline asm? Pretty much. Though given that what you have changed is in rt folders, I think the intent is that each compiler maintai

[Bug 49] ICE when using tuple over member variable in more than one method

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49 John Colvin changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|segmentation fault when |ICE when using tuple over

[Bug 49] New: segmentation fault when using tuple over member variable in more than one method

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49 Bug #: 49 Summary: segmentation fault when using tuple over member variable in more than one method Classification: Unclassified Product: GDC Version: development Platf

[Bug 48] New: scalar op vector is broken

http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48 Bug #: 48 Summary: scalar op vector is broken Classification: Unclassified Product: GDC Version: development Platform: x86_64 OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Se

Re: version statement problem in gdc

On 8 April 2013 17:55, John Colvin wrote: > On Monday, 8 April 2013 at 15:29:13 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: > >> On 8 April 2013 15:49, John Colvin >> > >> wrote: >> >> On Monday, 8 April 2013 at 00:13:29 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: >>> >>> If only that logic held water... GDC actually provi

Re: version statement problem in gdc

On Monday, 8 April 2013 at 15:29:13 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: On 8 April 2013 15:49, John Colvin wrote: On Monday, 8 April 2013 at 00:13:29 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: If only that logic held water... GDC actually provided the implementation of iasm to LDC. Reasons why it was yanked out. - on

Re: version statement problem in gdc

On 8 April 2013 15:49, John Colvin wrote: > On Monday, 8 April 2013 at 00:13:29 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: > >> If only that logic held water... >> >> GDC actually provided the implementation of iasm to LDC. Reasons why it >> was yanked out. >> - one big ugly x86 special case. >> > > Fair enough, a

Re: version statement problem in gdc

On Monday, 8 April 2013 at 00:13:29 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: If only that logic held water... GDC actually provided the implementation of iasm to LDC. Reasons why it was yanked out. - one big ugly x86 special case. Fair enough, although I see no reason why Ds iasm shouldn't be extended to s

Re: GDC 4.7 support?

On Wednesday, 18 July 2012 at 10:34:09 UTC, akaz wrote: On Saturday, 7 July 2012 at 00:49:30 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: On 6 July 2012 12:27, Iain Buclaw wrote: On 6 July 2012 12:04, smartly wrote: wait in hope gdc 4.7 :) The current development master is supported using gcc 4.8 development