On Monday, 13 May 2013 at 20:21:55 UTC, Mr. Anonymous wrote:
Will this minimum runtime environment work on Windows, too?
I'd like to try that out.
I see no reason why this would not work. The only thing that is
needed is a working cross compiler.
I have not heard of gdc cross compilers for
This month seems to be bug squashing month for GDC. Down to just
two common bugs in the commented out tests in the testsuite.
As of the most recent commit, I've even started seeing
std.parallelism unittests passing without a hitch on Linux
32/64bit.
Next focus on unittest fixes to come...
On Sunday, 12 May 2013 at 17:13:30 UTC, Timo Sintonen wrote:
On Sunday, 12 May 2013 at 15:27:04 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
On 12 May 2013 15:41, Rel wrote:
Benjamin Thaut, yes I know. but here is an example, if I add
a class to
the code like that:
module main;
extern (C) void* _Dmodule_ref =
On 20 April 2013 19:17, jerro wrote:
> Can do.
>>
>
> That would be nice :)
>
>
> Now we are freed from the shackles of GCC attributes, we can give some of
>> the attributes better or alternative names.
>>
>
> Personally, I'm fine with the names noinline and always_inline. If you are
> looking f
On Monday, 13 May 2013 at 08:24:52 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
On 13 May 2013 09:11, Dicebot wrote:
Last time I tried such stuff there was a TypeInfo emitted for
templated
structs. Is this still the case?
Why would you use templates in low level (eg: kernel) code?
Why would I chose D over C
On 13 May 2013 09:11, Dicebot wrote:
> Last time I tried such stuff there was a TypeInfo emitted for templated
> structs. Is this still the case?
>
Why would you use templates in low level (eg: kernel) code?
--
Iain Buclaw
*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
Last time I tried such stuff there was a TypeInfo emitted for
templated structs. Is this still the case?
