http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=64
--- Comment #3 from Iain Buclaw 2013-06-27 14:26:50
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I'll see if those can be reproduced on x86, but what headers are included in
> what order can be different on every platform.
>
> I hope we don't need to mirr
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=64
Johannes Pfau changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|ibuc...@gdcpr
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65
Bug #: 65
Summary: Debug info wrong for __modtest
Classification: Unclassified
Product: GDC
Version: development
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
S
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65
--- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw 2013-06-27 17:40:31
UTC ---
A test for you that doesn't require importing modules:
---
void main() {}
unittest
{
int* a = null;
*a = 10;
}
unittest
{
int* a = null;
*a = 10;
}
---
See comment i
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=64
--- Comment #4 from Iain Buclaw 2013-07-01 12:18:20
UTC ---
OK, see this link:
https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=gcc-4.8
The only other target where this warning occurs is sparc-linux-gnu.
---
Order of headers in config.gcc: "spar
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=66
Bug #: 66
Summary: Post/Pre increment expressions don't work in lhs.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: GDC
Version: development
Platform: x86
OS/Version: Linux
Stat
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=67
Bug #: 67
Summary: Array of vectors causes ICE
Classification: Unclassified
Product: GDC
Version: development
Platform: x86_64
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
S
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=66
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=67
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=68
Bug #: 68
Summary: BigInt declaration is not recognized
Classification: Unclassified
Product: GDC
Version: 4.8.x
Platform: x86_64
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=68
--- Comment #1 from noname 2013-07-03 12:41:27 UTC ---
besides, the error is displayed twice.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are watching all
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=68
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55
--- Comment #7 from Peter De Wachter 2013-07-04 13:23:26
UTC ---
This bug is still occurs in Debian's gdc-4.8 4.8.1-5. I guess that version
doesn't include 2.0.63 yet?
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55
--- Comment #8 from Iain Buclaw 2013-07-04 17:55:57
UTC ---
Not yet, no.
Yet to get gdc passing the test suite (again).
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because:
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=64
--- Comment #5 from Johannes Pfau 2013-07-04 18:44:21
UTC ---
It seems that the '*-*-sysv*' targets are not supported by gcc anymore and gcc
refuses to build those anyway. So maybe we don't need to use the sysv4.h
headers at all.
Another issue i
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=64
--- Comment #6 from Iain Buclaw 2013-07-05 07:51:09
UTC ---
Hmm I think I just used sed to remove them.
sed -i -s '/^diff/d'
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail b
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=69
Bug #: 69
Summary: core.builtins should be nothrow, pure and probably
@safe
Classification: Unclassified
Product: GDC
Version: 4.8.x
Platform: x86_64
OS/Version
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=69
--- Comment #1 from marco.le...@gmx.de 2013-07-05 09:42:18 UTC ---
pure is working already. I overlooked that.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You a
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=69
--- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw 2013-07-05 10:02:19
UTC ---
The most likely sequence of events were that gdc support was added first (we
were there first, what can I say? :) - then dmd support once its vector support
stabilised. Some time during
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=69
--- Comment #3 from marco.le...@gmx.de 2013-07-05 10:13:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> We could guarantee @safe-ty for builtin functions that are intrinsically
> expanded by the compiler (have no equivalent library call). Will have to
> th
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=69
--- Comment #4 from marco.le...@gmx.de 2013-07-05 10:15:37 UTC ---
In any case nothrow is more important as it cannot easily be contained like
@safe by marking stuff @trusted.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/userprefs.cgi?tab
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=69
--- Comment #5 from Iain Buclaw 2013-07-05 12:38:55
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > We could guarantee @safe-ty for builtin functions that are intrinsically
> > expanded by the compiler (have no equivalent library
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=64
Johannes Pfau changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=69
--- Comment #6 from marco.le...@gmx.de 2013-07-05 22:17:57 UTC ---
Ok, I'll keep quiet now
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are watching all bug
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70
Bug #: 70
Summary: dtor / destructor not called for (rvalue) struct used
in opApply
Classification: Unclassified
Product: GDC
Version: development
Platform: x86_64
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70
--- Comment #1 from marco.le...@gmx.de 2013-07-08 10:02:32 UTC ---
See also: https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/issues/426
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71
Bug #: 71
Summary: ICE with std.algorith.uniq
Classification: Unclassified
Product: GDC
Version: development
Platform: x86_64
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Se
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70
--- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw 2013-07-08 17:34:39
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> See also: https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/issues/426
No, I will not see also. :P
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/userprefs.cgi?ta
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70
--- Comment #3 from marco.le...@gmx.de 2013-07-08 17:41:18 UTC ---
I cross-linked both reports, so if either of you compiler devs finds out what
the issue is you can share it with the other team. That's all. So far on the
LDC side it only reads "I
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70
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
Component|libgdruntime|gdc
--- Comment #7 from Iain Buclaw 2013-0
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
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
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
--- 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 #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 #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=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=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 #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 #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
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from Iain Buclaw 2
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=64
--- Comment #8 from Iain Buclaw 2013-07-10 18:45:53
UTC ---
Thanks Johannes, though I seem to have been given the credit in the debian
changelog. :-P
http://ftp-master.metadata.debian.org/changelogs/main/g/gcc-4.8/unstable_changelog
--
Configu
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70
--- Comment #5 from Johannes Pfau 2013-07-14 07:01:44
UTC ---
Created attachment 41
--> http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/attachment.cgi?id=41
Regression test case
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70
Johannes Pfau changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
CC|
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70
--- Comment #7 from Johannes Pfau 2013-07-14 07:51:07
UTC ---
> tree handler = tryfinally(compound(exp)[i+1..firstDtor],
> compound(exp)[firstDtor..j+1]);
Sorry, the pseudo-code is partially wrong. To be 100% correct we have to find
the matchin
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70
--- Comment #8 from Iain Buclaw 2013-07-14 10:57:48
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Created attachment 41 [details]
> Regression test case
I think that regression would have been triggered against the patch above. But
about 15 minutes after
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70
Johannes Pfau changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70
--- Comment #10 from Iain Buclaw 2013-07-15 16:57:22
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> I think you're right and I somehow managed to get the old version. I can't
> reproduce my test case with a new checkout and the original test case is also
> f
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70
--- Comment #11 from Iain Buclaw 2013-07-15 17:00:21
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> > I think you're right and I somehow managed to get the old version. I can't
> > reproduce my test case with a new checkout and th
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=72
Bug #: 72
Summary: Wrong code generated (segmentation fault) when class
(in one file) inherits from class (in another file)
with interface
Classification: Unclassified
P
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=72
Johannes Pfau changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||johannesp...@gmail.com
Severity
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73
--- Comment #1 from Johannes Pfau 2013-08-06 13:41:35
UTC ---
Created attachment 43
--> http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/attachment.cgi?id=43
dump-tree-original output
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73
Bug #: 73
Summary: ARM: Wrong code with -O2 (heisenbug)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: GDC
Version: development
Platform: ARM
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73
--- Comment #2 from Johannes Pfau 2013-08-06 13:42:24
UTC ---
Created attachment 44
--> http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/attachment.cgi?id=44
dump-tree-gimple output
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
-
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73
--- Comment #3 from Johannes Pfau 2013-08-06 13:43:19
UTC ---
Created attachment 45
--> http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/attachment.cgi?id=45
dump-tree-optimized output
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=emai
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73
--- Comment #4 from Johannes Pfau 2013-08-06 13:44:27
UTC ---
Created attachment 46
--> http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/attachment.cgi?id=46
dump-rtl-reload output
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73
--- Comment #5 from Johannes Pfau 2013-08-06 13:44:52
UTC ---
Created attachment 47
--> http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/attachment.cgi?id=47
dump-rtl-postreload output
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=emai
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=72
--- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw 2013-08-06 16:56:22
UTC ---
Going to re-open #27 and revert later.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are watchin
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugz
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=72
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|FIXED
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=74
Bug #: 74
Summary: Wrong code generated (incorrect offset to static
array)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: GDC
Version: 4.7.x
Platform: ARM
OS/Version: Li
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #6 from Iain Buclaw 2
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73
--- Comment #7 from Iain Buclaw 2013-08-12 13:06:37
UTC ---
OK, now codegen is:
;; Function main (_Dmain)
;; enabled by -tree-original
{
struct Tup1 e;
struct Tup3 tup22;
struct Tup2 tup12;
struct Tup1 tup11;
(void) (tup11 = at.tup1
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=74
Johannes Pfau changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||johannesp...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 fro
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73
--- Comment #8 from Johannes Pfau 2013-08-13 15:15:29
UTC ---
That code looks much better now :-)
I've been working on ARM support recently and I'll push my changes soon. I
mainly implemented missing ASM in the compiler test suite and added miss
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73
--- Comment #9 from Johannes Pfau 2013-08-13 15:16:09
UTC ---
Created attachment 49
--> http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/attachment.cgi?id=49
test case 2
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You a
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=75
Bug #: 75
Summary: 4x performance regression of to!(char[]) from gcd 4.6
to 4.8
Classification: Unclassified
Product: GDC
Version: 4.8.x
Platform: x86_64
OS/Ver
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=75
--- Comment #1 from Paul Jurczak 2013-08-21 10:05:59
UTC ---
This has probably little to do with GDC itself, but is related to changes in
std.conv module. I could measure it only with gdc, hence I reported it here.
--
Configure bugmail: http://
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=75
--- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw 2013-08-21 12:49:58
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> This has probably little to do with GDC itself, but is related to changes in
> std.conv module. I could measure it only with gdc, hence I reported it here.
Th
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=75
--- Comment #3 from Paul Jurczak 2013-08-21 13:11:41
UTC ---
Created attachment 51
--> http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/attachment.cgi?id=51
-fdump-tree-original for gdc 4.6
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/userprefs.cgi?tab
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=75
--- Comment #4 from Paul Jurczak 2013-08-21 13:12:26
UTC ---
Created attachment 52
--> http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/attachment.cgi?id=52
-fdump-tree-original for gcc 4.8
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/userprefs.cgi?tab
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=75
Paul Jurczak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #52|-fdump-tree-original for|-fdump-tree-original for
descriptio
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=75
--- Comment #5 from Paul Jurczak 2013-08-21 13:20:07
UTC ---
I added the files you requested, but they are syntactically different: assembly
vs. D. I will be glad to run the new gdc version when available.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32
Johannes Pfau changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76
Bug #: 76
Summary: dyn. array length++ fails
Classification: Unclassified
Product: GDC
Version: development
Platform: x86
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severi
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76
--- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw 2013-09-03 15:41:44
UTC ---
Not sure if your d frontend version is as you say it is... I get no problems
checking on current development.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=em
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76
--- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw 2013-09-03 15:43:14
UTC ---
also, gcc-4.6 is rather old, I'd suggest switching over to gcc-4.7/4.8.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73
--- Comment #10 from Johannes Pfau 2013-09-04 08:07:36
UTC ---
A small update: git-bisect shows that we actually have two different bugs and
both are regressions.
The first bug is triggered when compiling runnable/aliasthis.d in the
testsuite. I
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=77
Bug #: 77
Summary: ICE with static array argument
Classification: Unclassified
Product: GDC
Version: 4.8.x
Platform: x86_64
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Seve
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=77
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=78
Bug #: 78
Summary: Compilation broken
Classification: Unclassified
Product: GDC
Version: 4.7.x
Platform: x86_64
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: critic
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=79
Bug #: 79
Summary: ICE Seg fault
Classification: Unclassified
Product: GDC
Version: 4.8.x
Platform: x86_64
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=79
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=79
David Nadlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||c...@klickverbot.at
--- Comment #2 from
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=80
Bug #: 80
Summary: socket.d - static assert unimplemented or raspberry pi
Classification: Unclassified
Product: GDC
Version: 4.8.x
Platform: ARM
OS/Version: Linux
Statu
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=80
Stefan Frijters changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sfrijt...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=80
--- Comment #2 from Stefan Frijters 2013-10-13 11:53:29
BST ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Heh, I was just going to file the exact same bug. I'm building on Raspbian,
> but
> otherwise the config is the same. I took a look at the file and it loo
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=80
Johannes Pfau changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=80
--- Comment #4 from Stefan Frijters 2013-10-14 07:32:31
BST ---
Thanks, didn't know about that fork. Just wanted to report that I did another
round of building overnight, now based on your fork / arm branch, and the build
process completed withou
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=81
Bug #: 81
Summary: ICE in gimple_expand_cfg
Classification: Unclassified
Product: GDC
Version: development
Platform: x86
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severit
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=81
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw 2
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=81
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ibuc...@gdcproject.org
--
Configure bugmai
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=81
--- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw 2013-10-17 14:59:00
BST ---
Minimum testcase:
---
class MyClass {
void vertices() {
class _VList {
_VList save() { return new _VList; }
}
}
}
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugz
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=82
Bug #: 82
Summary: Crash when compiled with gdc (not dmd). Related to
direntry? or with?
Classification: Unclassified
Product: GDC
Version: 4.8.x
Platform: x86_64
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=82
--- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw 2013-10-24 10:46:56
BST ---
Can not reproduce on current gdc development.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are
301 - 400 of 758 matches
Mail list logo
