January 17, 2013 Re: Ready for review: new std.uni | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Mehrdad | On 1/17/2013 1:20 AM, Mehrdad wrote:
> Have you seen the Visual C++ 2012 compiler? It fixes that problem.
>
> Its auto-vectorizer has two switches:
>
> 1. /Qvec-report:1, which reports the auto-vectorized loops
> 2. /Qvec-report:2, which reports all potential candidates and whether or not
> they were vectorized (and if not, a reason code)
I would call it more of a workaround than a fix.
|
January 22, 2013 Re: Update #1 on new std.uni | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to H. S. Teoh | 17-Jan-2013 22:48, H. S. Teoh пишет: > On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 02:48:30PM +0400, Dmitry Olshansky wrote: >> 11-Jan-2013 23:31, Dmitry Olshansky пишет: >>> >>> The code, including extra tests and a benchmark is here: >>> https://github.com/blackwhale/gsoc-bench-2012 >>> >>> And documentation: >>> http://blackwhale.github.com/phobos/uni.html [snip] >> >> - Why are the isX() functions @system? I would have expected they should >> be at least @trusted? (Or are there technical problems / compiler bugs >> preventing this?) >> > > M-hm I'm seeing this in my sources: > bool isAlpha(dchar c) @safe pure nothrow > {...} > > The DDoc however shows @system. > > A compiler bug? It's indeed a bug in the compiler, looks funny: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9371 Makes me think that the compiler treats @safe after the function prototype differently then the one placed before it. The trailing-@safe camp must be jealous. >> That's all for now. I hope you don't mind me allowing the grammar nazi >> to take over for a bit. I want Phobos documentation to be professional >> quality. :) >> All of these were incorporated, thanks. Among other new stuff I've added some cross-links throughout. Now on to the normalization forms description, etc. -- Dmitry Olshansky |
January 22, 2013 Re: Update #1 on new std.uni | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Dmitry Olshansky | On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 00:20:19 Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
> It's indeed a bug in the compiler, looks funny: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9371
>
> Makes me think that the compiler treats @safe after
> the function prototype differently then the one placed before it.
> The trailing-@safe camp must be jealous.
Prepending @safe is evil. ;)
That's definitely a weird bug though. I'd say that it pretty much has to be a bug in the parser given that the AST should be identical regardless of which side of the function signature an attribute is on.
- Jonathan m Davis
|
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation