March 18
On Thursday, 16 February 2017 at 21:05:51 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
> [ ... ]

Small update I fixed the handling of $ in slices.
[1,2,3,4][$-2 .. $] == [3,4]
will now work in newCTFE

March 17
On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 03:29:15AM +0000, Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Thursday, 16 February 2017 at 21:05:51 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
> > [ ... ]
> 
> Small update I fixed the handling of $ in slices.
> [1,2,3,4][$-2 .. $] == [3,4]
> will now work in newCTFE

Awesome!  It's great to see the new CTFE engine slowly but surely taking shape.  Really looking forward to see the final product.


T

-- 
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the world. -- Anonymous
March 19
On Thursday, 16 February 2017 at 21:05:51 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
> [ ... ]

I just restored Array/Slice-Expansion.
I also introduced concat!

This will now compile with newCTFE!

static immutable uint[] OneToTen = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10];

const(uint[]) SliceOf1to10(uint lwr, uint upr)
{
    return OneToTen[lwr .. upr];
}

const(uint)[] testConcat()
{
    return SliceOf1to10(0,4) ~ SliceOf1to10(7,9);
}

static assert(testConcat == [1,2,3,4,8,9]);

6 days ago
On Thursday, 16 February 2017 at 21:05:51 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
> [ ... ]

Oh darn, function pointers regressed!
I did not notice because the corresponding tests were commented out.

I am working to fix it ASAP.
6 days ago
On Monday, 20 March 2017 at 11:48:56 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
> On Thursday, 16 February 2017 at 21:05:51 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
>> [ ... ]
>
> Oh darn, function pointers regressed!
> I did not notice because the corresponding tests were commented out.
>
> I am working to fix it ASAP.

It's not function pointers.
It's slice extension.

It just happened that my function pointer tests relied on slice extension working.
6 days ago
On Monday, 20 March 2017 at 12:06:57 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
> On Monday, 20 March 2017 at 11:48:56 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
>> On Thursday, 16 February 2017 at 21:05:51 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
>>> [ ... ]
>>
>> Oh darn, function pointers regressed!
>> I did not notice because the corresponding tests were commented out.
>>
>> I am working to fix it ASAP.
>
> It's not function pointers.
> It's slice extension.
>
> It just happened that my function pointer tests relied on slice extension working.

Actually it's just local variables of slices :)
Doged a nasty bullet there.
5 days ago
On Thursday, 16 February 2017 at 21:05:51 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
> [ ... ]

Hi I fixed the local slice issue.
It turned out that there was special code in place to deal with this case;
But that I forgot to change that to the new slice ABI.

The moral of this story is;
ABI changes are hard to do if you have an ad-hoc approach to it.
However now I made ABI-dependeant values more visible.
And it is unlikely that further slice-ABI changes will cause problems.

Cheers,
Stefan
4 days ago
On Thursday, 16 February 2017 at 21:05:51 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
> [ ... ]

I just fixed a bug in switches, where the fall-trough case would incorrectly jump after the switch.

The reason this bug occurred is that none of my tests did cover the fall-trough case.
The code that handles switches converts them into a big if-else chain because jump-tables are usually more expensive for small switches.
Next ›   Last »
1 2 3 4 5 6 7