I really hope this is ready to go!

http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd1beta.zip http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd2beta.zip

I'm almost afraid to test it.

On 2/17/2011 10:32 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>
> I really hope this is ready to go!
>
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd1beta.zip
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd2beta.zip
> _______________________________________________
> dmd-beta mailing list
> dmd-beta at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta
>

On Thursday 17 February 2011 19:40:29 David Simcha wrote:
> I'm almost afraid to test it.

Well, he's probably almost afraid for you to test it too! ;)

- Jonathan M Davis

SortedRange regression (Bug 5596; http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5596) is still not fixed. On the other hand, this is a fairly minor regression and even though it broke one small piece of my code (and probably very few other people's), I'm inclined to say that the benefits of releasing now and getting wider feedback on 64 outweigh the benefits of fixing this bug before release, unless the fix is absolutely trivial.

Other than that, I ran all my dstats and std.parallelism unit tests again on Linux -m64.  Thumbs up.

On 2/17/2011 10:32 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>
> I really hope this is ready to go!
>
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd1beta.zip
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd2beta.zip
> _______________________________________________
> dmd-beta mailing list
> dmd-beta at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta
>

Thanks everyone for their hard work on this beta. I'm going to release it late tonight unless something terrible comes up.

On 18 February 2011 05:04, David Simcha <dsimcha at gmail.com> wrote:
> SortedRange regression (Bug 5596; http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5596) is still not fixed. ?On the other hand, this is a fairly minor regression and even though it broke one small piece of my code (and probably very few other people's), I'm inclined to say that the benefits of releasing now and getting wider feedback on 64 outweigh the benefits of fixing this bug before release, unless the fix is absolutely trivial.

I'm pretty sure it's a manifestation of bug 4269, the mother of all
template bugs.
As long as it remains unfixed, subtle changes in Phobos template code
will cause
corner cases to break; and others that previously failed will start to work.
This situation is no different to the any of the last dozen releases
in that regard.
4269 is really difficult to fix.

So I don't see it as any reason to delay the release.

I've found something pretty bad. On Windows, the unittests for both
Phobos and druntime have been run with -release!!!
This would suggest that they haven't actually been run properly at all!
Removing -release causes failures in std.conv and std.json, but I
think both are the same problem:
to!float( "123e+2" ) is broken.


On 18 February 2011 07:20, Walter Bright <walter at digitalmars.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks everyone for their hard work on this beta. I'm going to release it
> late tonight unless something terrible comes up.
> _______________________________________________
> dmd-beta mailing list
> dmd-beta at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta
>

That's pretty embarassing.  I haven't dug yet, maybe you have already.  How long has the makefile been broken like that?
 If not long, I'd vote for holding the release and fixing the makefile and the failing tests.

Also, is the bigint bug a regression or an old bug just recently found?  If it's a regression, I'd also vote for fixing it.  I really don't like shipping with new regressions.

On 2/17/2011 11:39 PM, Don Clugston wrote:
> I've found something pretty bad. On Windows, the unittests for both
> Phobos and druntime have been run with -release!!!
> This would suggest that they haven't actually been run properly at all!
> Removing -release causes failures in std.conv and std.json, but I
> think both are the same problem:
> to!float( "123e+2" ) is broken.
> 
> 
> On 18 February 2011 07:20, Walter Bright <walter at digitalmars.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks everyone for their hard work on this beta. I'm going to release it late tonight unless something terrible comes up.

Don Clugston wrote:
> I've found something pretty bad. On Windows, the unittests for both
> Phobos and druntime have been run with -release!!!
> This would suggest that they haven't actually been run properly at all!
> Removing -release causes failures in std.conv and std.json, but I
> think both are the same problem:
> to!float( "123e+2" ) is broken.
>
> 

At this point, I think we could go on forever with fixing just one more problem. We need to do a release and then get to work fixing more of them. I figure there will be a slew of 64 bit problems.

On 2/18/2011 2:13 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
> 
> 
> Don Clugston wrote:
>> I've found something pretty bad. On Windows, the unittests for both
>> Phobos and druntime have been run with -release!!!
>> This would suggest that they haven't actually been run properly at all!
>> Removing -release causes failures in std.conv and std.json, but I
>> think both are the same problem:
>> to!float( "123e+2" ) is broken.
>>
>> 
> 
> At this point, I think we could go on forever with fixing just one more problem. We need to do a release and then get to work fixing more of them. I figure there will be a slew of 64 bit problems.

IMHO, there's a major difference between fixing more old stuff vs not introducing regressions.