May 04, 2010
Subj happens with dmd 1.059 and -gc. Is this still supposed to happen? I thought that the fixes included in 1.059 were supposed to fix this?

-- 
Best regards,
 Vladimir                            mailto:vladimir@thecybershadow.net
May 04, 2010
On Tue, 04 May 2010 14:11:37 +0300, Vladimir Panteleev <vladimir@thecybershadow.net> wrote:

> Subj happens with dmd 1.059 and -gc. Is this still supposed to happen? I thought that the fixes included in 1.059 were supposed to fix this?

Hmm. I just realized that:

1) I started a similar thread not two months ago
   (I had genuinely forgotten, and didn't notice my own name in the list)

2) I may have sounded somewhat rude in the above post.
   Robert (and everyone else involved), I appreciate the lengths you went to
   to attempt to fix the issue. Unfortunately it looks like there is more to it,
   or maybe I'm doing something wrong this time.

-- 
Best regards,
 Vladimir                            mailto:vladimir@thecybershadow.net
May 04, 2010
On 04/05/10 12:11, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> Subj happens with dmd 1.059 and -gc. Is this still supposed to happen? I
> thought that the fixes included in 1.059 were supposed to fix this?

It is fixed, but the fix in 1.059 is broken. 1.060 should fix the issue.
May 05, 2010
On Tue, 04 May 2010 18:41:54 +0300, Robert Clipsham <robert@octarineparrot.com> wrote:

> On 04/05/10 12:11, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
>> Subj happens with dmd 1.059 and -gc. Is this still supposed to happen? I
>> thought that the fixes included in 1.059 were supposed to fix this?
>
> It is fixed, but the fix in 1.059 is broken. 1.060 should fix the issue.

Ah, thanks! Is the new fix in SVN?

-- 
Best regards,
 Vladimir                            mailto:vladimir@thecybershadow.net
May 05, 2010
On Wed, 05 May 2010 04:05:25 +0300, Vladimir Panteleev <vladimir@thecybershadow.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 04 May 2010 18:41:54 +0300, Robert Clipsham <robert@octarineparrot.com> wrote:
>
>> On 04/05/10 12:11, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
>>> Subj happens with dmd 1.059 and -gc. Is this still supposed to happen? I
>>> thought that the fixes included in 1.059 were supposed to fix this?
>>
>> It is fixed, but the fix in 1.059 is broken. 1.060 should fix the issue.
>
> Ah, thanks! Is the new fix in SVN?

Sorry, I should have checked announce first! Didn't expect a new DMD so soon.

-- 
Best regards,
 Vladimir                            mailto:vladimir@thecybershadow.net
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home