Second beta for the 2.072.0 release.

We've fixed quite a few regressions, but some issues are still open and
there will be third beta before the release.
Most notably we've fixed building of dmd on OSX, so you should now be
able to test the beta using brew.

http://dlang.org/download.html#dmd_beta http://dlang.org/changelog/2.072.0.html

See the following links for all changes between 2.072.0-b1 and 2.072.0-b2.

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/compare/v2.072.0-b1...v2.072.0-b2 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/compare/v2.072.0-b1...v2.072.0-b2 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/compare/v2.072.0-b1...v2.072.0-b2 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org/compare/v2.072.0-b1...v2.072.0-b2

Please report any bugs at https://issues.dlang.org.

-Martin

Which branch changelog content is generated from?

On Sunday, 9 October 2016 at 14:36:49 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> Which branch changelog content is generated from?

Stable, the changelog is also included in the docs that are in the packages.
I do merge stable back into master to publish them though.

There is an error [1] (caused by [2]) in taggedalgebraic, because void initializers for pointer types are now invalid in safe code. The question now is, is there any workaround that can be done in the library, or will every library user have to fix this?

Of course, the new error is more restrictive than it should be, namely if the uninitialized pointer field gets written before the first read, it would still be safe.

[1]: https://github.com/s-ludwig/taggedalgebraic/blob/2d9f9c537f9616bbe2a7072a9aa42ff1fd95f6d6/source/taggedalgebraic.d#L280
[2]: https://github.com/s-ludwig/taggedalgebraic/blob/2d9f9c537f9616bbe2a7072a9aa42ff1fd95f6d6/source/taggedalgebraic.d#L56

On Sunday, 9 October 2016 at 13:24:19 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
> Second beta for the 2.072.0 release.
>
> We've fixed quite a few regressions, but some issues are still open and
> there will be third beta before the release.
> Most notably we've fixed building of dmd on OSX, so you should now be
> able to test the beta using brew.
>
> http://dlang.org/download.html#dmd_beta http://dlang.org/changelog/2.072.0.html
>
> See the following links for all changes between 2.072.0-b1 and 2.072.0-b2.
>
> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/compare/v2.072.0-b1...v2.072.0-b2 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/compare/v2.072.0-b1...v2.072.0-b2 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/compare/v2.072.0-b1...v2.072.0-b2 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org/compare/v2.072.0-b1...v2.072.0-b2
>
> Please report any bugs at https://issues.dlang.org.
>
> -Martin

Any news on the front of https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16574 ?
This is a blocker. Last week week I've discovered that it's actually a regression that has even more regressed...so at least if we could come back to the previous level of regression this would also mean "situation unblocked".

On Monday, 10 October 2016 at 09:03:53 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
> Of course, the new error is more restrictive than it should be, namely if the uninitialized pointer field gets written before the first read, it would still be safe.

That's surprising b/c void initializers for struct fields didn't use to work.
I need to research the intent behind this to say sth. detailed, though usually an shouldn't break working code, only deprecate it.

On Monday, 10 October 2016 at 10:06:25 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
> Any news on the front of https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16574 ?

It's on our heap and will be addressed soon.
Please look at our trello board.
https://trello.com/b/XoFjxiqG/active

On 10/10/2016 12:28 PM, Martin Nowak wrote:
> It's on our heap and will be addressed soon.
> Please look at our trello board.
> https://trello.com/b/XoFjxiqG/active

These two 2.072 regressions seem to be missing from Trello:

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16013
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16273

Am 10.10.2016 um 12:20 schrieb Martin Nowak:
> On Monday, 10 October 2016 at 09:03:53 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
>> Of course, the new error is more restrictive than it should be, namely
>> if the uninitialized pointer field gets written before the first read,
>> it would still be safe.
>
> That's surprising b/c void initializers for struct fields didn't use to
> work.

Hm, thanks for the hint - if that's still the case, that leads to the very simple workaround of simply removing the "= void". Would have been nice in theory to have real void initialization of course, plus it was there for working around that (fixed?) issue with slow compilation times for large static arrays, but there is probably no real reason now to keep it.

> I need to research the intent behind this to say sth. detailed, though
> usually an shouldn't break working code, only deprecate it.

On Sunday, 9 October 2016 at 22:01:31 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
> On Sunday, 9 October 2016 at 14:36:49 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>> Which branch changelog content is generated from?
>
> Stable, the changelog is also included in the docs that are in the packages.
> I do merge stable back into master to publish them though.

I am confused in that case. What shall I do to replace http://dlang.org/changelog/2.072.0.html#dash_safe with my changes from https://github.com/dlang/dmd/blob/stable/changelog.dd ?