June 25, 2012 Re: Stack overflow | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Namespace | On 06/25/2012 05:52 PM, Namespace wrote: > On Monday, 25 June 2012 at 15:39:19 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote: >> On 06/25/2012 02:18 PM, Namespace wrote: >>> Fine. But nothing of them explain the Stack overflow if i add an >>> additional method or disable/add an additional ctor. >> >> It does not have to be explained: it is a compiler bug. > > Then it will take months or years until it is fixed ... too bad. > Many of them get fixed quite fast if they are reported properly. > And that Ref!(Foo) rf = new Foo(); ends even with "Stack overflow" and > Ref!(Foo) rf2 = new Ref!(Foo)(new Foo()); not has the same explanation > "Compiler Bug", hm? > It is always a compiler bug if compilation crashes. |
June 25, 2012 Re: Stack overflow | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Timon Gehr | > Many of them get fixed quite fast if they are reported properly. But since I have had other experiences. But no matter. > It is always a compiler bug if compilation crashes. Only that a simple "@disable this(typeof(null));" fails, is crap. Because so you cannot test at compile time for such assignments. |
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation