On 22.05.2011 03:04, Don Clugston wrote:
> On 20 May 2011 16:48, Rainer Schuetze<r.sagitario at gmx.de>  wrote:
>> On 20.05.2011 16:32, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> On 5/20/11 2:16 AM, Don Clugston wrote:
>>>> Apart from the size, a particular problem with std.datetime is that it
>>>> has unittests _inside_ struct declarations.
>>>> This makes the code practically unreadable, especially since those
>>>> unittests are enormous, and it makes bisection a very painful, manual
>>>> process. 30K lines with only a few blocks of unittests wouldn't be a
>>>> problem.
>>> Just a thought - how about a tool (that would go in the same dir as dmd and rdmd) called strip_unittest? It would read a D program and output to stdout the same program without unittests.
>>>
>>> All we need is a D tokenizer (which we need anyway) and a small driver.
>>>
>> Visual D has a "token replacer" that allows to do this: http://www.dsource.org/projects/visuald/wiki/Tour/TokenReplace
>>
>> replacing "unittest { $anything }" with "unittest { }" (to not get into troubles with version conditionals before the unittest statement) reduces the size of datetime.d to about a third of its original size.
>>
>> Rainer
> This looks like exactly what I want. Unfortunately when I select that menu item, I just get a gray box. Presumably something's gone wrong in the installation (I just upgraded from a few versions back; VS shell 2008). Any ideas?

I've seen this, too. It seems to be some update issue when you open the dialog for the first time. Resizing the window makes the controls appear.

Works now, thanks! That has helped enormously in getting a reduced
test case. Bug 6049. Fix is in my open CTFE pull request.
Still took about six times as long to reduce the test case, as it did
to fix the bug. Would have been about ten times as long, without this
tool.


On 22 May 2011 12:45, Rainer Schuetze <r.sagitario at gmx.de> wrote:
> On 22.05.2011 03:04, Don Clugston wrote:
>>
>> On 20 May 2011 16:48, Rainer Schuetze<r.sagitario at gmx.de> ?wrote:
>>>
>>> On 20.05.2011 16:32, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/20/11 2:16 AM, Don Clugston wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Apart from the size, a particular problem with std.datetime is that it
>>>>> has unittests _inside_ struct declarations.
>>>>> This makes the code practically unreadable, especially since those
>>>>> unittests are enormous, and it makes bisection a very painful, manual
>>>>> process. 30K lines with only a few blocks of unittests wouldn't be a
>>>>> problem.
>>>>
>>>> Just a thought - how about a tool (that would go in the same dir as dmd and rdmd) called strip_unittest? It would read a D program and output to stdout the same program without unittests.
>>>>
>>>> All we need is a D tokenizer (which we need anyway) and a small driver.
>>>>
>>> Visual D has a "token replacer" that allows to do this: http://www.dsource.org/projects/visuald/wiki/Tour/TokenReplace
>>>
>>> replacing "unittest { $anything }" with "unittest { }" (to not get into troubles with version conditionals before the unittest statement) reduces the size of datetime.d to about a third of its original size.
>>>
>>> Rainer
>>
>> This looks like exactly what I want. Unfortunately when I select that menu item, I just get a gray box. Presumably something's gone wrong in the installation (I just upgraded from a few versions back; VS shell 2008). Any ideas?
>
> I've seen this, too. It seems to be some update issue when you open the dialog for the first time. Resizing the window makes the controls appear.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmd-internals mailing list
> dmd-internals at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
>

On 24 May 2011 08:18, Don Clugston <dclugston at googlemail.com> wrote:

> Works now, thanks! That has helped enormously in getting a reduced
> test case. Bug 6049. Fix is in my open CTFE pull request.
> Still took about six times as long to reduce the test case, as it did
> to fix the bug. Would have been about ten times as long, without this
> tool.


You may find DustMite useful Don, not sure if you've noticed the other posts about it:

https://github.com/CyberShadow/DustMite

It's written in D and designed for D, helped me narrow down a testcase (5000LoC -> 80LoC) in about 10 minutes with no intervention on my part. Just a note, make sure to rm -rf your .git directory first, otherwise it'll spend 10 minutes trying to figure out if it can delete it or not!

-- 
Robert
http://octarineparrot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/dmd-internals/attachments/20110524/98a8c8df/attachment.html>

> On 24 May 2011 08:18, Don Clugston <dclugston at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Works now, thanks! That has helped enormously in getting a reduced
> > test case. Bug 6049. Fix is in my open CTFE pull request.
> > Still took about six times as long to reduce the test case, as it did
> > to fix the bug. Would have been about ten times as long, without this
> > tool.
> 
> You may find DustMite useful Don, not sure if you've noticed the other posts about it:
> 
> https://github.com/CyberShadow/DustMite
> 
> It's written in D and designed for D, helped me narrow down a testcase (5000LoC -> 80LoC) in about 10 minutes with no intervention on my part. Just a note, make sure to rm -rf your .git directory first, otherwise it'll spend 10 minutes trying to figure out if it can delete it or not!

Delete .git??!! It sounds like it should be run on a backup repository or something. I'd _hate_ to have my .git removed. That would get rid of any branches that you have, any git-stashes that you've done, your exclude file, etc.

- Jonathan M Davis

On 24 May 2011 18:56, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com> wrote:

> > On 24 May 2011 08:18, Don Clugston <dclugston at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > Works now, thanks! That has helped enormously in getting a reduced
> > > test case. Bug 6049. Fix is in my open CTFE pull request.
> > > Still took about six times as long to reduce the test case, as it did
> > > to fix the bug. Would have been about ten times as long, without this
> > > tool.
> >
> > You may find DustMite useful Don, not sure if you've noticed the other posts about it:
> >
> > https://github.com/CyberShadow/DustMite
> >
> > It's written in D and designed for D, helped me narrow down a testcase (5000LoC -> 80LoC) in about 10 minutes with no intervention on my part. Just a note, make sure to rm -rf your .git directory first, otherwise it'll spend 10 minutes trying to figure out if it can delete it or not!
>
> Delete .git??!! It sounds like it should be run on a backup repository or
> something. I'd _hate_ to have my .git removed. That would get rid of any
> branches that you have, any git-stashes that you've done, your exclude
> file,
> etc.


Yes, the idea is you run it from a backup directory, I forgot to mention that! That said, I believe Vladimir is adding some sort of functionality to ignore .git/.svn etc.

-- 
Robert
http://octarineparrot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/dmd-internals/attachments/20110524/f86b5baf/attachment-0001.html>

On 24 May 2011 19:32, Robert <robert at octarineparrot.com> wrote:
> On 24 May 2011 08:18, Don Clugston <dclugston at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Works now, thanks! That has helped enormously in getting a reduced
>> test case. Bug 6049. Fix is in my open CTFE pull request.
>> Still took about six times as long to reduce the test case, as it did
>> to fix the bug. Would have been about ten times as long, without this
>> tool.
>
> You may find DustMite useful Don, not sure if you've noticed the other posts
> about it:
> https://github.com/CyberShadow/DustMite
> It's written in D and designed for D, helped me narrow down a testcase
> (5000LoC -> 80LoC) in about 10 minutes with no intervention on my part.

Yes, I tried it, but unfortunately it doesn't work for bugs like this
one. It generates exactly the same error message, but it's not the
correct bug.
I tried about six times, then gave up.

On 25 May 2011 05:37, Don Clugston <dclugston at googlemail.com> wrote:

> On 24 May 2011 19:32, Robert <robert at octarineparrot.com> wrote:
> > On 24 May 2011 08:18, Don Clugston <dclugston at googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Works now, thanks! That has helped enormously in getting a reduced
> >> test case. Bug 6049. Fix is in my open CTFE pull request.
> >> Still took about six times as long to reduce the test case, as it did
> >> to fix the bug. Would have been about ten times as long, without this
> >> tool.
> >
> > You may find DustMite useful Don, not sure if you've noticed the other
> posts
> > about it:
> > https://github.com/CyberShadow/DustMite
> > It's written in D and designed for D, helped me narrow down a testcase
> > (5000LoC -> 80LoC) in about 10 minutes with no intervention on my part.
>
> Yes, I tried it, but unfortunately it doesn't work for bugs like this one. It generates exactly the same error message, but it's not the correct bug.
>

It has recently had a --noremove option added to it which could help. Is there anything that could be done to make it work for bugs like this?


> I tried about six times, then gave up.


-- 
Robert
http://octarineparrot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/dmd-internals/attachments/20110525/343a77bd/attachment.html>