April 11, 2006 Re: DMD 0.153 release | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter Bright | Walter Bright wrote:
> Bug fixes.
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
Steadily marching towards 1.0! Have you set criterion for when that will be Walter?
|
April 11, 2006 Re: DMD 0.153 release | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Kyle Furlong | Kyle Furlong wrote: > Walter Bright wrote: >> Bug fixes. >> >> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html > > Steadily marching towards 1.0! Have you set criterion for when that will be Walter? Aside from bugs there's still some minor work to do with imports and interfaces - maybe dynamic libraries on linux too ;) Otherwise we're almost there :) -- Jari-Matti |
April 11, 2006 Re: DMD 0.153 release | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter Bright | In article <e1egd4$flk$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says... > >Bug fixes. > >http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html Thank you Walter. :) #95 was really starting to cause some problems in my code. Thanks for taking the time to fix it so quickly. - EricAnderton at yahoo |
April 11, 2006 Re: DMD 0.153 release | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter Bright | Thanks for removing the std.regexp dependency on std.outbuffer :-) Sean |
April 11, 2006 Re: DMD 0.153 release | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter Bright | In article <e1egd4$flk$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says... > >Bug fixes. > >http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html as learning lurker thanx for your super work! r |
April 11, 2006 Re: DMD 0.153 release | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Sean Kelly | Sean Kelly wrote:
> Thanks for removing the std.regexp dependency on std.outbuffer :-)
It still depends on it, I just removed a couple of the cases. The rest needs to go, too. The reason outbuffer is in there is because when I originally wrote regexp, the D arrays were not as powerful as they are now.
|
April 11, 2006 Re: DMD 0.153 release | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter Bright | Thanks to all who said 'thanks.' Your appreciation makes it all worthwhile for me. |
April 11, 2006 Re: DMD 0.153 release | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter Bright | Walter Bright wrote:
> Sean Kelly wrote:
>> Thanks for removing the std.regexp dependency on std.outbuffer :-)
>
> It still depends on it, I just removed a couple of the cases. The rest needs to go, too. The reason outbuffer is in there is because when I originally wrote regexp, the D arrays were not as powerful as they are now.
Oops, you're right--I must have missed the build message after removing OutBuffer. No worries. I'll just keep OutBuffer around a bit longer then. It's still nice see all this getting sorted out.
Sean
|
April 11, 2006 Re: DMD 0.153 release | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter Bright | Walter Bright wrote:
> Thanks to all who said 'thanks.' Your appreciation makes it all worthwhile for me.
And not only us, but (as really I believe it,) Mankind!
Honestly.
georg
|
April 12, 2006 Re: DMD 0.153 release | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter Bright | Walter Bright wrote: > Derek Parnell wrote: >> On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 11:43:28 +1000, Derek Parnell wrote: >>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 18:25:49 -0700, Walter Bright wrote: >>>> Naw. "smart linking" is a marketing term that appeared in the 1980's that refers to the linker discarding unreferenced code sections. Since it's a bit of jargon, I italicized it. Optlink has been doing it for 15+ years, ld only recently. >>> Is a 'code section' equivalent to a D module? In other words, if I have three D modules, each one is in its own unique code section. And thus if I'm not referencing anything in one of those modules and I include the module.obj in the command line, the linker will discard that module from the resulting executable file? >>> >>> Or is 'code section' more finely grained than that, say down to the function level? >> >> Never mind, I just did a test and it seems to be at the function level. That is, optlink discards functions that are not referenced even if other functions in the same module are referenced. > > Each module is made up of multiple sections. Smart linking relies on the compiler emitting a separate section for each function. You can see this by running obj2asm on it. This is really impressive - the resulting Linux binaries now seem to be several hundreds of kilobytes smaller! A big thanks. -- Jari-Matti |
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation