Walter Bright wrote:
> Bug fixes.
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

Steadily marching towards 1.0! Have you set criterion for when that will be Walter?

Kyle Furlong wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> Bug fixes.
>>
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
> 
> Steadily marching towards 1.0! Have you set criterion for when that will be Walter?

Aside from bugs there's still some minor work to do with imports and interfaces - maybe dynamic libraries on linux too ;) Otherwise we're almost there :)

-- 
Jari-Matti

In article <e1egd4$flk$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
>
>Bug fixes.
>
>http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

Thank you Walter. :)

#95 was really starting to cause some problems in my code.  Thanks for taking the time to fix it so quickly.

- EricAnderton at yahoo

Thanks for removing the std.regexp dependency on std.outbuffer :-)


Sean

In article <e1egd4$flk$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
>
>Bug fixes.
>
>http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

as learning lurker

thanx for your super work!

r

Sean Kelly wrote:
> Thanks for removing the std.regexp dependency on std.outbuffer :-)

It still depends on it, I just removed a couple of the cases. The rest needs to go, too. The reason outbuffer is in there is because when I originally wrote regexp, the D arrays were not as powerful as they are now.

Thanks to all who said 'thanks.' Your appreciation makes it all worthwhile for me.

Walter Bright wrote:
> Sean Kelly wrote:
>> Thanks for removing the std.regexp dependency on std.outbuffer :-)
> 
> It still depends on it, I just removed a couple of the cases. The rest needs to go, too. The reason outbuffer is in there is because when I originally wrote regexp, the D arrays were not as powerful as they are now.

Oops, you're right--I must have missed the build message after removing OutBuffer.  No worries.  I'll just keep OutBuffer around a bit longer then.  It's still nice see all this getting sorted out.


Sean

Walter Bright wrote:
> Thanks to all who said 'thanks.' Your appreciation makes it all worthwhile for me.

And not only us, but (as really I believe it,) Mankind!

Honestly.

georg

Walter Bright wrote:
> Derek Parnell wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 11:43:28 +1000, Derek Parnell wrote:
>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 18:25:49 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
>>>> Naw. "smart linking" is a marketing term that appeared in the 1980's that refers to the linker discarding unreferenced code sections. Since it's a bit of jargon, I italicized it. Optlink has been doing it for 15+ years, ld only recently.
>>> Is a 'code section' equivalent to a D module? In other words, if I have three D modules, each one is in its own unique code section. And thus if I'm not referencing anything in one of those modules and I include the module.obj in the command line, the linker will discard that module from the resulting executable file?
>>>
>>> Or is 'code section' more finely grained than that, say down to the function level?
>>
>> Never mind, I just did a test and it seems to be at the function level. That is, optlink discards functions that are not referenced even if other functions in the same module are referenced.
> 
> Each module is made up of multiple sections. Smart linking relies on the compiler emitting a separate section for each function. You can see this by running obj2asm on it.

This is really impressive - the resulting Linux binaries now seem to be several hundreds of kilobytes smaller! A big thanks.

-- 
Jari-Matti