On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 12:50:02PM +0200, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> On 07/08/2013 11:45 AM, eles wrote:
> > Just me alone, I do not feel that I have enough time and competence
> > to do that. But, what about to form a venture, the three of us?
> > (JRW, HST and me, Iain already has a lot of
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from Iain Buclaw 2
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71
--- Comment #4 from Iain Buclaw 2013-07-09 21:09:31
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > Anyways... it's a frontend closure bug.
> >
>
> Failing line:
>
> __ctmp1809->this = this;
Area that generates the bad code:
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71
--- Comment #3 from Iain Buclaw 2013-07-09 20:53:19
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Anyways... it's a frontend closure bug.
>
Failing line:
__ctmp1809->this = this;
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=em
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71
--- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw 2013-07-09 20:46:32
UTC ---
Anyways... it's a frontend closure bug.
(gdb) call debug_generic_expr (exp)
this
(gdb) p exp.base.code
$1 = PARM_DECL
(gdb) call debug_generic_expr (decl_function_context (exp))
Canon
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71
--- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw 2013-07-09 20:41:27
UTC ---
Ideally, would like a smaller test without imports. (this one produces just
under 10,000 lines of code :)
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
-
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=69
--- Comment #11 from Iain Buclaw 2013-07-09 20:28:29
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Wow, nice list. It's good to see the atomic operations in the list, too. Did
> you filter out the SIMD instructions to make it shorter?
Yes, hence the "(alo
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=69
--- Comment #12 from Iain Buclaw 2013-07-09 20:33:02
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
>
> Yes, hence the "(along with all backend builtins)".
>
> The only i386/x86_64 builtins that aren't marked as such are:
>
> extern pure @system real __bui
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=69
--- Comment #10 from marco.le...@gmx.de 2013-07-09 20:22:38 UTC ---
Wow, nice list. It's good to see the atomic operations in the list, too. Did
you filter out the SIMD instructions to make it shorter?
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.gdcpro
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=69
--- Comment #9 from Iain Buclaw 2013-07-09 20:14:15
UTC ---
As a result, all these functions are now listed as pure nothrow @safe (along
with all backend builtins).
// D import file generated from 'builtins.d'
module gcc.builtins;
extern (C)
{
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=69
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=69
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|core.builtins should be |gcc.builtins should be
|n
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=69
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libgdruntime|gdc
--- Comment #7 from Iain Buclaw 2013-0
One of the tests in std.complex is failing because cos(LITERAL) and
cos(VARIABLE) return different results. AFAICS this happens only if the
parameter doesn't fit in 80bits and needs to be rounded. If
LITERAL/VARIABLE are values which fit exactly in 80bits we get the same
result. It's exactly the sa
GDC sources can't compile the code. :)
And it's sometimes harder to build GDC from sources, i don't want
to have that headache.
Sorry, but i meant binary releases, of course, for windows, for
example.
On 07/09/2013 12:29 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> As per documentation:
>
> The D language is under development as of this writing; see {current
> language reference}. At present the current major version of D is
> 2.0, and
> there is no way to describe the language supported by GCC in terms of
> a sp
On 5 July 2013 22:32, Johannes Pfau wrote:
> Am Wed, 26 Jun 2013 17:45:42 +0200
> schrieb "Iain Buclaw" :
>
>> Unless Vladimir possibly gives us access to dlang's wiki to post
>> the documentation content there. I've opened up a new wiki page
>> for people to contribute to.
>>
>> http://wiki.gdcp
On 9 July 2013 10:40, Temtaime wrote:
> Why there is no GDC releases? It prevents many from using GDC.
No it doesn't, stop lying. (Where's my sartalic formatting when I need it)
As per documentation:
The D language is under development as of this writing; see {current
language reference}. At
Why there is no GDC releases? It prevents many from using GDC.
On Jul 9, 2013 7:55 AM, "Johannes Pfau" wrote:
>
> I wanted to update the gdc-4.8 branch and I surprisingly got many merge
> conflicts. I think this is because we used rebase on the master branch
> now and then.
>
> So are there any gdc-4.8 specific commits in that branch or could I
> just delete
22 matches
Mail list logo
