Thread overview | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
April 23, 2013 [dmd-internals] ModuleInfoDeclaration and Module::moduleinfo | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Attachments:
| Just a quick question before I raise a pull.
I had noticed that 'struct ModuleInfoDeclaration' is currently unused (and looks to have been for a couple of years now). Is there still a need to keep it?
Also, 'Module::moduleinfo' is now a StructDeclaration since turning on MODULEINFO_IS_STRUCT (again, this has been the case for some time too). So this will need to be updated as well... I am particularly interested in this small fix as I could use it in gdc.
Regards
--
Iain Buclaw
*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
|
April 23, 2013 Re: [dmd-internals] ModuleInfoDeclaration and Module::moduleinfo | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Iain Buclaw Attachments:
| On 4/23/2013 2:43 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote: > Just a quick question before I raise a pull. > > I had noticed that 'struct ModuleInfoDeclaration' is currently unused (and looks to have been for a couple of years now). Is there still a need to keep it? No. > > > Also, 'Module::moduleinfo' is now a StructDeclaration since turning on MODULEINFO_IS_STRUCT (again, this has been the case for some time too). So this will need to be updated as well... I am particularly interested in this small fix as I could use it in gdc. > > > Regards > -- > Iain Buclaw > > *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0'; > > > _______________________________________________ > dmd-internals mailing list > dmd-internals@puremagic.com > http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals |
April 23, 2013 Re: [dmd-internals] ModuleInfoDeclaration and Module::moduleinfo | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter Bright Attachments:
| On 23 April 2013 18:44, Walter Bright <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote: > > On 4/23/2013 2:43 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote: > > Just a quick question before I raise a pull. > > I had noticed that 'struct ModuleInfoDeclaration' is currently unused (and looks to have been for a couple of years now). Is there still a need to keep it? > > > No. > Okie doke. -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0'; |
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation