Walter Bright wrote:
> Some things of note:
> 
> 1) This includes a new code coverage analyzer for dmd (I think gcov should
> work for gdc users). I've been wanting to add this for 20 years, I finally
> realized it was a piece of cake. Took me 3 hours to write, 3 hours to tweak.
> I shoulda done it a long time ago. I can't believe some third party tools to
> do this cost $800+.
> 
> 2) The submissions for bug reports on complex numbers has risen a lot
> lately, and I never get them for the C compiler. This means that nobody uses
> complex numbers in C, but they do in D. Interesting!
> 
> 3) This incorporates a new 'header' generator capability, written by Dave
> Fladebo. I goofed it up merging it in, so it is disabled at the moment (just
> the source for it is included). I hope to get it working by the next update.
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
> 
> 
> 

Wow!! Code Coverage looks awesome! specially that I'm new to the concept!!
Good job!

BCS wrote:
> I think this is related to a bug that still exists from .140.
> 
> (http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.bugs/5671)
> 
> The essence of the problem is that DMD can't tell the argument list of a
> function from just the name.
> 
> example:
> 
> int fn(int);
> int fn(char);
> void fn(void);
> 
> // what type is fn?
> 
> auto fnp = &fn;
> 
> // what type is fnp and what does it point to
> 
> 

Interesting.  I was actually experimenting a little more:

int testfunc( char[] s, int i, int j, int k ) {}

void main()
{
   writelfn( typeid(typeof(&testfunc)) );
   writelfn( (&testfunc).mangleof );
}

OUTPUTS:

int()*
PFAaiiZi


So as we see above, the typeid of the function pointer cannot be extracted similar to what you describe.  Only that it returns an int and that it is a function pointer is represented.

-JJR

John Reimer wrote:

>> #define REGISTER_AS_REMOTE_PROCEDURE_CALL(Object, functionName) (Object)->Register((#functionName),(functionName))
> 
> If I can't get the symbol name converted to a string at compile time... all is lost and D is still limited.
> 

I just want to say that all is NOT lost... that sounded very melodramatic.  I can get around this simply enough with with more typing... it would be just kind of nice to be able to do everything with D. ;-)

-JJR

In article <dn0i6d$2pgk$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
>
>Some things of note:
>
>1) This includes a new code coverage analyzer for dmd (I think gcov should work for gdc users). I've been wanting to add this for 20 years, I finally realized it was a piece of cake. Took me 3 hours to write, 3 hours to tweak. I shoulda done it a long time ago. I can't believe some third party tools to do this cost $800+.
>
>2) The submissions for bug reports on complex numbers has risen a lot lately, and I never get them for the C compiler. This means that nobody uses complex numbers in C, but they do in D. Interesting!
>
>3) This incorporates a new 'header' generator capability, written by Dave Fladebo. I goofed it up merging it in, so it is disabled at the moment (just the source for it is included). I hope to get it working by the next update.
>
>http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

In article <dn0i6d$2pgk$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
>
>Some things of note:
>
>1) This includes a new code coverage analyzer for dmd (I think gcov should work for gdc users). I've been wanting to add this for 20 years, I finally realized it was a piece of cake. Took me 3 hours to write, 3 hours to tweak. I shoulda done it a long time ago. I can't believe some third party tools to do this cost $800+.
>
>2) The submissions for bug reports on complex numbers has risen a lot lately, and I never get them for the C compiler. This means that nobody uses complex numbers in C, but they do in D. Interesting!
>
>3) This incorporates a new 'header' generator capability, written by Dave Fladebo. I goofed it up merging it in, so it is disabled at the moment (just the source for it is included). I hope to get it working by the next update.
>
>http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

Walter, I just tested the new features out and they look great!  One critique about .mangleof() if I may:

> static char[] mangleof(char[] namespace);

This way, one can get mangleof to emit a fully-qualified symbol:

> writefln("_D",typeof(char[]).mangleof("my.string.ident"));

Which would emit:

> _Dmy6string5identAa

I think this adjustment might prove very useful.

- EricAnderton at yahoo

In article <dn2e4h$2c4h$1@digitaldaemon.com>, John Reimer says...
>
>BCS wrote:
>> I think this is related to a bug that still exists from .140.
>> 
>> (http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.bugs/5671)
>> 
>> The essence of the problem is that DMD can't tell the argument list of a function from just the name.
>> 
..
>> 
>> 
>
>Interesting.  I was actually experimenting a little more:
>
>int testfunc( char[] s, int i, int j, int k ) {}
>
>void main()
>{
>    writelfn( typeid(typeof(&testfunc)) );
>    writelfn( (&testfunc).mangleof );
>}
>
>OUTPUTS:
>
>int()*
>PFAaiiZi
>
>
>So as we see above, the typeid of the function pointer cannot be extracted similar to what you describe.  Only that it returns an int and that it is a function pointer is represented.
>
>-JJR


It gets worse :-o
try overloding test with different return types, then it gest nothing right!



import std.stdio;

// switch these and the type changes
char test(char v){}
int test(int i){}

void main()
{
writef( typeid(typeof(&test)) , \n);
writef( (&test).mangleof , \n);
}

"James Dunne" <james.jdunne@gmail.com> wrote in message news:dn24a7$1utp$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> On WinXP SP2, DMD 0.141 says
>
>    Error: unrecognized switch '-Hdheaders'
>
> and
>
>    Error: unrecognized switch '-Hfheaders'
>
> NOTE: these are listed as options on the help screen output from DMD.exe invoked without any arguments.

That's because it's disabled at the moment.

> Also, the -cov switch is missing from
> that screen.

I'll fix that.

> I have no idea what code coverage is,

See www.digitalmars.com/d/code_coverage.html

> but the header file generation
> code is pretty freakin' cool (if I can get it to work?)!  Way to go
Walter.

Dave Fladebo is the author of that <g>.

In article <dn0i6d$2pgk$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
>
>Some things of note:
>
>1) This includes a new code coverage analyzer for dmd (I think gcov should work for gdc users). I've been wanting to add this for 20 years, I finally realized it was a piece of cake. Took me 3 hours to write, 3 hours to tweak. I shoulda done it a long time ago. I can't believe some third party tools to do this cost $800+.
>

Wow, this is very cool!

I think mention of this should be added to

http://digitalmars.com/d/comparison.html

and

http://digitalmars.com/d/overview.html

On the code coverage documentation page it says

dmd sieve -cov
sieve

Shouldn't it be

dmd sieve.d -cov
sieve

? This one through me for a little loop.

clayasaurus wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
> 
>> "clayasaurus" <clayasaurus@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:dn0l15$2rqf$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>
>>> When I type 'dmd' on linux with no options it gives me the help menu and
>>> then it displays the following...
>>>
>>> arc profiling: Can't open output file /home/clark/cbx/mars/access.da.
>>
>>
>>
>> Criminy, I put the wrong executable up. It's fixed now.
>>
>>
> 
> Thanks. Also, you're still using 'printf' with '\n' for the sieve example? ;)
> 
> The code coverage analysis is a neat little tool and is very much appreciated. : )
> 

Is this a compiler specific feature, or is it part of the language?

~ Clay

Dave wrote:
> In article <dn0i6d$2pgk$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
> 
>>Some things of note:
>>
>>1) This includes a new code coverage analyzer for dmd (I think gcov should
>>work for gdc users). I've been wanting to add this for 20 years, I finally
>>realized it was a piece of cake. Took me 3 hours to write, 3 hours to tweak.
>>I shoulda done it a long time ago. I can't believe some third party tools to
>>do this cost $800+.
>>
> 
> 
> Wow, this is very cool!
> 
> I think mention of this should be added to 
> 
> http://digitalmars.com/d/comparison.html
> 
> and
> 
> http://digitalmars.com/d/overview.html
> 
> 

"clayasaurus" <clayasaurus@gmail.com> wrote in message news:dn30jp$2sl5$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> On the code coverage documentation page it says
>
> dmd sieve -cov
> sieve
>
> Shouldn't it be
>
> dmd sieve.d -cov
> sieve
>
> ? This one through me for a little loop.

The two are the same. A .d default extension is applied if there isn't one already.