Jump to page: 1 2
Thread overview
Re: LDC 0.12.0 beta 1 released, please help test!
Oct 20, 2013
David Nadlinger
Oct 20, 2013
Martin Krejcirik
Oct 20, 2013
David Nadlinger
Oct 21, 2013
David Nadlinger
Oct 20, 2013
yaz
Oct 20, 2013
David Nadlinger
Oct 21, 2013
yaz
Oct 21, 2013
David Nadlinger
Oct 21, 2013
yaz
Oct 23, 2013
yaz
Oct 22, 2013
Kai Nacke
Oct 22, 2013
David Nadlinger
Oct 22, 2013
Kai Nacke
October 20, 2013
Any further regression reports? If not, I'd propose to release 0.12.0 tomorrow.

I already have a branch for 2.064 in the works, so hopefully the next release won't be too far out anyway.

David
October 20, 2013
On 20.10.2013 21:58, David Nadlinger wrote:
> Any further regression reports? If not, I'd propose to release 0.12.0 tomorrow.

Not sure if it is a regression, but I've just noticed __VERSION__ is defined as 63, but it was 2062 in 0.11 and it's 2063 in dmd).

-- 
mk
October 20, 2013
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Martin Krejcirik <mk-junk@i-line.cz> wrote:
> Not sure if it is a regression, but I've just noticed __VERSION__ is defined as 63, but it was 2062 in 0.11 and it's 2063 in dmd).

It is, fix incoming.

David
October 20, 2013
I think I found a regression. It seems that ldmd2 is not building 64-bit applications by default on a 64-bit machine while it did before. Although ldc2 does it correctly. Of course, specifiying -m64 makes it work correctly.

On Sunday, 20 October 2013 at 19:58:35 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
> Any further regression reports? If not, I'd propose to release 0.12.0 tomorrow.
>
> I already have a branch for 2.064 in the works, so hopefully the next
> release won't be too far out anyway.
>
> David

October 20, 2013
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 11:58 PM, yaz <yazan.dabain@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think I found a regression. It seems that ldmd2 is not building 64-bit applications by default on a 64-bit machine while it did before. Although ldc2 does it correctly. Of course, specifiying -m64 makes it work correctly.

LDMD is not supposed to add any -m* flags by default.

What platform are you on? Do you use a binary package? Which one? Could you please post the output of "ldmd2 -vdmd helloworld.d" (i.e. the LDC command LDMD actually runs)?

David
October 21, 2013
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Martin Krejcirik <mk-junk@i-line.cz> wrote:
> Not sure if it is a regression, but I've just noticed __VERSION__ is defined as 63, but it was 2062 in 0.11 and it's 2063 in dmd).

Resolved in Git master: https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/pull/516

David
October 21, 2013
On Sunday, 20 October 2013 at 22:11:25 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 11:58 PM, yaz <yazan.dabain@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think I found a regression. It seems that ldmd2 is not building 64-bit
>> applications by default on a 64-bit machine while it did before. Although
>> ldc2 does it correctly. Of course, specifiying -m64 makes it work correctly.
>
> LDMD is not supposed to add any -m* flags by default.
>
> What platform are you on? Do you use a binary package? Which one?
> Could you please post the output of "ldmd2 -vdmd helloworld.d" (i.e.
> the LDC command LDMD actually runs)?
>
> David

Sorry for the late reply, here's what I get:

/home/userx/apps/ldc2-0.12.0-beta1-linux-x86_64/bin/ldc2 -singleobj -m32 test.d

I'm on Fedora 19 x86.
October 21, 2013
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 7:02 AM, yaz <yazan.dabain@gmail.com> wrote:
> /home/userx/apps/ldc2-0.12.0-beta1-linux-x86_64/bin/ldc2 -singleobj -m32 test.d

I couldn't reproduce the issue on various Ubuntu versions or Arch Linux, but found a possibly related issue in LDMD: https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/pull/520

David
October 21, 2013
On Monday, 21 October 2013 at 12:45:00 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 7:02 AM, yaz <yazan.dabain@gmail.com> wrote:
>> /home/userx/apps/ldc2-0.12.0-beta1-linux-x86_64/bin/ldc2 -singleobj -m32
>> test.d
>
> I couldn't reproduce the issue on various Ubuntu versions or Arch
> Linux, but found a possibly related issue in LDMD:
> https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/pull/520
>
> David

If you want to release another binary, I will happily test.
October 22, 2013
On Sunday, 20 October 2013 at 19:58:35 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
> Any further regression reports? If not, I'd propose to release 0.12.0 tomorrow.

Will you also post an official announcement?
And the source code archive (like in the beta) is missing in the release...
(Sorry for not uploading one - I still rebuild my Gentoo image....)

Kai
« First   ‹ Prev
1 2