January 14, 2017
On Saturday, 7 January 2017 at 05:02:13 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
> First beta for the 2.073.0 release.
>
> This release comes with a few phobos additions, a new -mcpu=avx switch, an experimental safety checks (-transition=safe/-dip1000), and several bugfixes.
>
> http://dlang.org/download.html#dmd_beta http://dlang.org/changelog/2.073.0.html
>
> Please report any bugs at https://issues.dlang.org
>
> -Martin

DCD master doesn't build with this version. Try to build using make (and not DUB).
You should get, at the end:

[...]
bin/dcd-server.o: dans la fonction « _Dmain »:
msgpack-d/src/msgpack/value.d:(.text._Dmain+0xa38): référence indéfinie vers « _D4core4time12TickDuration25__T10opOpAssignVAyaa1_2bZ10opOpAssignMFNaNbNcNiNfS4core4time12TickDurationZS4core4time12TickDuration »
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
Error: linker exited with status 1
makefile:124: recipe for target 'dmdserver' failed
make: *** [dmdserver] Error 1

I don't know what to think. With 2.072.2 no problem.
This doesn't look like a standard regression since it happens during linking.

Please someone test and confirm.
January 14, 2017
On Saturday, 14 January 2017 at 07:51:13 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
> On Saturday, 7 January 2017 at 05:02:13 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
>> First beta for the 2.073.0 release.
> _D4core4time12TickDuration25__T10opOpAssignVAyaa1_2bZ10opOpAssignMFNaNbNcNiNfS4core4time12TickDurationZS4core4time12TickDuration »
> collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
> Error: linker exited with status 1
> makefile:124: recipe for target 'dmdserver' failed
> make: *** [dmdserver] Error 1
>
> I don't know what to think. With 2.072.2 no problem.
> This doesn't look like a standard regression since it happens during linking.
>
> Please someone test and confirm.

Forget this, I've realized a bit late that it's already reported:
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17072
January 14, 2017
On 1/7/2017 3:54 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2017-01-07 06:02, Martin Nowak wrote:
>> an experimental safety checks (-transition=safe/-dip1000)
> Is the flag to enable the new checks or revert to the previous behavior?

enable
January 14, 2017
>
> * -transition=safe/-dip1000
> => not mentioned in http://dlang.org/changelog/2.073.0.html
>

> That's deliberate, as you can't even use it with writeln yet.

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17090 `dmd -transition=?` needs quoting => make it `-transition=help`

On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 3:46 AM, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce < digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:

> On 1/7/2017 3:54 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>
>> On 2017-01-07 06:02, Martin Nowak wrote:
>>
>>> an experimental safety checks (-transition=safe/-dip1000)
>>>
>> Is the flag to enable the new checks or revert to the previous behavior?
>>
>
> enable
>


January 15, 2017
On 01/14/2017 03:14 AM, bitwise wrote:
> Is it possible to get an ETA on protection work on __traits?

As any responsible programmer, I won't give out dates ;).
But as was mentioned this is mostly just removing existing access
checks, the visibility checks already treat __traits specially.
This can be done once the visibility changes are fully deprecated and
become errors. So far adoption was fairly slow though.

Changing things specifically for __traits(getMember, exp, "field") which is currently lowered to exp.field would be too much effort.

-Martin
January 14, 2017
On 1/7/2017 6:44 AM, biozic wrote:
> Are phobos unittests not passing when compiling with -dip1000 considered bugs or
> is it this experimental?

druntime is now being compiled with -dip1000.

  https://github.com/dlang/druntime/pull/1733

Phobos is next!
January 15, 2017
On 2017-01-15 01:52, Martin Nowak wrote:

> Changing things specifically for __traits(getMember, exp, "field") which
> is currently lowered to exp.field would be too much effort.

What about lowering to "exp.tupleof[index]", which already bypass protection?

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
January 15, 2017
Sorry, this is OT in the beta thread.

On 01/15/2017 03:31 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> What about lowering to "exp.tupleof[index]", which already bypass protection?

We also have lots of other stuff to do, and no there is no 1-to-1 mapping between exp.name and exp.tupleof[index].

January 15, 2017
On 01/14/2017 09:10 AM, Basile B. wrote:
> Forget this, I've realized a bit late that it's already reported: https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17072

The cause is that we build druntime on Windows with -dip25. https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17072#c1


January 15, 2017
On Sunday, 15 January 2017 at 06:07:23 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> Phobos is next!

I can't wait :)
1 2
Next ›   Last »