It's past time.

> It's past time.

The one thing that I'm aware of that was a problem thanks to Don's CTFE changes which I don't know whether it was fixed or not was QtD. IIRC, Max was saying that it was seriously broken earlier. There's a good chance that it's fine now, but I think that we should make sure that QtD is no longer failing to build due to the CTFE changes.

- Jonathan M Davis

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/phobos/attachments/20110505/fc29867d/attachment-0001.html>

On 5/4/2011 9:24 PM, David Simcha wrote:
> On 5/4/2011 11:59 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>> It's past time.
>> _______________________________________________
>> phobos mailing list
>> phobos at puremagic.com
>> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
>>
>
> I'd really like to get that #$(&@$ parallelism bug solved.  I don't know what to do about it because it *seems* to only occur under a ridiculously narrow set of circumstances but until I figure out for sure what's going on I won't be fully confident that it's not some horrible concurrency bug.  OTOH, I have no estimate right now of how much longer that's going to take.  My latest thing to note is that sometimes the stack pointer, of all things, is somehow getting overwritten with the value of TaskStatus.done.  I have absolutely no clue how.  I'm starting to feel the same way about this bug that I usually feel about the biology problems I try to solve for my thesis research:  The harder I look, the more confused I get.

I feel your pain on that, I've been through that mill many times. Sometimes it helps to set it down for a moment. Worst case, we release with a buggy std.parallelism. It's not breaking existing code because it's new.

>
> Also, I don't think the auto tester indicates we're ready for a release quite yet.  It's been ICEing on the std.concurrency unittests.

Sigh.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/phobos/attachments/20110504/d4aa5bba/attachment.html>

Two regressions (with simple patches) which I think should be fixed
before release: 5798, 5890.
But that's all.

On 5 May 2011 05:59, Walter Bright <walter at digitalmars.com> wrote:
> It's past time.
> _______________________________________________
> phobos mailing list
> phobos at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
>

On 5/4/2011 9:17 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> The one thing that I'm aware of that was a problem thanks to Don's CTFE changes which I don't know whether it was fixed or not was QtD. IIRC, Max was saying that it was seriously broken earlier. There's a good chance that it's fine now, but I think that we should make sure that QtD is no longer failing to build due to the CTFE changes.
>
>

I folded in patches to dmd requested by Qt. If there are other issues with Qt, are they in bugzilla?

> On 5/4/2011 9:17 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > The one thing that I'm aware of that was a problem thanks to Don's CTFE changes which I don't know whether it was fixed or not was QtD. IIRC, Max was saying that it was seriously broken earlier. There's a good chance that it's fine now, but I think that we should make sure that QtD is no longer failing to build due to the CTFE changes.
> 
> I folded in patches to dmd requested by Qt. If there are other issues with Qt, are they in bugzilla?

No, I don't believe so. I just recall that when the recent CTFE changes came up in one of the threads in the main newsgroup, and I mentioned that they were still broken, because my recent changes to std.datetime weren't compiling, Max said that they were causing a lot of failures for QtD as well. I doubt that he would have created a bug report though, given that Don was in the middle of his changes. It's quite possible that it compiles fine now though. I just think that it should be verified that the CTFE changes are now stable enough that QtD is no longer failing to build because of them as it was before. Much as Don's changes are definitely something that we want, they risk causing serious regressions if we're not careful.

- Jonathan M Davis

On 5/4/2011 11:25 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> On 5/4/2011 9:17 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>> The one thing that I'm aware of that was a problem thanks to Don's CTFE changes which I don't know whether it was fixed or not was QtD. IIRC, Max was saying that it was seriously broken earlier. There's a good chance that it's fine now, but I think that we should make sure that QtD is no longer failing to build due to the CTFE changes.
>>
>> I folded in patches to dmd requested by Qt. If there are other issues with Qt, are they in bugzilla?
> 
> No, I don't believe so. I just recall that when the recent CTFE changes came up in one of the threads in the main newsgroup, and I mentioned that they were still broken, because my recent changes to std.datetime weren't compiling, Max said that they were causing a lot of failures for QtD as well. I doubt that he would have created a bug report though, given that Don was in the middle of his changes. It's quite possible that it compiles fine now though. I just think that it should be verified that the CTFE changes are now stable enough that QtD is no longer failing to build because of them as it was before. Much as Don's changes are definitely something that we want, they risk causing serious regressions if we're not careful.
> 
> - Jonathan M Davis

Which is exactly why we do beta releases..

done

On 5/4/2011 10:49 PM, Don Clugston wrote:
> Two regressions (with simple patches) which I think should be fixed
> before release: 5798, 5890.
> But that's all.

On 5 May 2011 08:25, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com> wrote:
>> On 5/4/2011 9:17 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> > The one thing that I'm aware of that was a problem thanks to Don's CTFE changes which I don't know whether it was fixed or not was QtD. IIRC, Max was saying that it was seriously broken earlier. There's a good chance that it's fine now, but I think that we should make sure that QtD is no longer failing to build due to the CTFE changes.
>>
>> I folded in patches to dmd requested by Qt. If there are other issues with Qt, are they in bugzilla?
>
> No, I don't believe so. I just recall that when the recent CTFE changes came up in one of the threads in the main newsgroup, and I mentioned that they were still broken, because my recent changes to std.datetime weren't compiling, Max said that they were causing a lot of failures for QtD as well. I doubt that he would have created a bug report though, given that Don was in the middle of his changes. It's quite possible that it compiles fine now though. I just think that it should be verified that the CTFE changes are now stable enough that QtD is no longer failing to build because of them as it was before. Much as Don's changes are definitely something that we want, they risk causing serious regressions if we're not careful.

I added a lot more very harsh sanity checks to the CTFE engine, so
there's very little risk of wrong-code regressions.
If there are any regressions, they will probably be an ICE, on
something which previously worked by pure luck.

I think we should roll out a beta, as soon as Phobos unittests pass.