July 03, 2007 Re: DMD 1.018 and 2.002 releases | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Christian Kamm | Christian Kamm wrote: >> Just bug fixes common to both. > > Great news! And special thanks for fixing bug 540... > > Unfortunately, this code (which appears in derelict) broke > > - > version(Windows) > extern(Windows): > else > extern(C): > > Declaration expected, not 'else' > - > > Looking around in the spec, I can not find where the StorageClass: syntax is > defined, so maybe it is supposed to be illegal? > > Cheers, > Christian The problem extends just beyond compiler errors, unfortunately: http://dblog.aldacron.net/2007/07/03/derelict-problems-with-dmd-1018/ |
July 03, 2007 Re: DMD 1.018 and 2.002 releases | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Luís Marques | Luís Marques wrote:
> Walter: have you considered keeping a large code base of D projects which you would try to compile and run its unit tests before each release? It would be a akin to dstress, with the added benefit that it would check that major projects are OK with new versions.
I don't do that for several reasons:
1) Running the test suite is already an all night affair. Making it a week long affair makes it fairly unusable.
2) Trying to figure out why some large code base of code I am unfamiliar with fails is a major effort. It's not practical.
3) I find that people tend to program in "islands" of a particular language, no matter how large that program becomes, it only tests a particular "island" of features. So 99.9% of the large program becomes redundant as a test suite.
4) Nearly all bugs can be boiled down to 10 or less lines of code (even ones their submitter swears can't be reduced! <g>). Putting these into the test suite is highly effective. It gives me a very fast check, and since it is very small, when it fails it is a *lot* less work to figure out why.
5) The test suite is a gradual accretion of all those 10 liners. Over time, it gets extremely thorough. The one I have for C/C++ is a distillation of 25 years of bug reports, and the result is it is very rare for any regressions.
To sum up, I find it more useful to target with a rifle rather than carpet bombing!
|
July 03, 2007 Re: DMD 1.018 and 2.002 releases | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter Bright | Reply to Walter,
> Luís Marques wrote:
>
>> Walter: have you considered keeping a large code base of D projects
>> which you would try to compile and run its unit tests before each
>> release? It would be a akin to dstress, with the added benefit that
>> it would check that major projects are OK with new versions.
>>
> I don't do that for several reasons:
>
> 1) Running the test suite is already an all night affair. Making it a
> week long affair makes it fairly unusable.
>
Does anyone else have the time (CPU and brain time) and interest to do this? A script that would check out all the SVN stuff from dsource and run the unittest would get a quite large return for the effort (that assumes stuff has good unittests, a worth goal in and of it's self).
|
July 03, 2007 Re: DMD 1.018 and 2.002 releases | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to BCS | BCS wrote:
> Reply to Walter,
>
>> Luís Marques wrote:
>>
>>> Walter: have you considered keeping a large code base of D projects which you would try to compile and run its unit tests before each release? It would be a akin to dstress, with the added benefit that it would check that major projects are OK with new versions.
>>>
>> I don't do that for several reasons:
>>
>> 1) Running the test suite is already an all night affair. Making it a week long affair makes it fairly unusable.
>>
>
> Does anyone else have the time (CPU and brain time) and interest to do this? A script that would check out all the SVN stuff from dsource and run the unittest would get a quite large return for the effort (that assumes stuff has good unittests, a worth goal in and of it's self).
I wonder if Gregor could recommend us up some tool to accomplish this?
BA
|
July 03, 2007 Re: DMD 1.018 and 2.002 releases | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter Bright | Walter Bright wrote: > I don't do that for several reasons: > > 1) Running the test suite is already an all night affair. Making it a week long affair makes it fairly unusable. > > 2) Trying to figure out why some large code base of code I am unfamiliar with fails is a major effort. It's not practical. > > 3) I find that people tend to program in "islands" of a particular language, no matter how large that program becomes, it only tests a particular "island" of features. So 99.9% of the large program becomes redundant as a test suite. > > 4) Nearly all bugs can be boiled down to 10 or less lines of code (even ones their submitter swears can't be reduced! <g>). Putting these into the test suite is highly effective. It gives me a very fast check, and since it is very small, when it fails it is a *lot* less work to figure out why. > > 5) The test suite is a gradual accretion of all those 10 liners. Over time, it gets extremely thorough. The one I have for C/C++ is a distillation of 25 years of bug reports, and the result is it is very rare for any regressions. > > To sum up, I find it more useful to target with a rifle rather than carpet bombing! I have to agree with all points. Thats right, projects owners could do it much more efficiently. And they actually do... http://dblog.aldacron.net/2007/07/03/derelict-problems-with-dmd-1018/ -- serg. |
July 04, 2007 Re: DMD 1.018 and 2.002 releases | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter Bright | Walter Bright wrote:
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.002.zip
That first page still links to dmd.2.001.zip as the "latest D 2.0 alpha D compiler" (at the top)
|
July 04, 2007 Re: DMD 1.018 and 2.002 releases | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Frits van Bommel | Frits van Bommel wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
>> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.002.zip
>
> That first page still links to dmd.2.001.zip as the "latest D 2.0 alpha D compiler" (at the top)
Not no more!
|
July 05, 2007 Re: DMD 1.018 and 2.002 releases | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter Bright | Walter Bright wrote:
> To sum up, I find it more useful to target with a rifle rather than carpet bombing!
Right, right, and treple right! Go on, you... :)
|
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation