Dave wrote:
> Kirk McDonald wrote:
>> David Friedman wrote:
>>> So... I was not aware of this problem.  Thanks for pointing it out.  I realize people are building out of the dev branch because there has not been a release for so long... I will try to get this fixed soon.
>>
>> I am eagerly awaiting a stable release of GDC that is caught up to DMD 0.176. As far as I can tell, this will allow Pyd to compile on Linux, which will allow me to declare an actual release of the library. My hope is that this will then attract some of the Python crowd to D.
>>
> 
> Just curious - will DMD 0.176 not work for this, or do you just prefer GDC for that platform?
> 
> Thanks.

The last time I checked, DMD could not compile working .so files on Linux.

-- 
Kirk McDonald
Pyd: Wrapping Python with D
http://pyd.dsource.org

Downs wrote:
> Attempting to build the current rev48 gdc 0.20 branch on mingw/gcc4.0.3; the resulting gdc.exe is incapable of compiling even the most basic test files; it crashes on configure with a sigsegv in actest.d:0.
> Somewhat related question; is it possible to compile gcc so that it does not catch segment violations internally? This "feature" makes it impossible for me to get stack traces of the crash in gdb (no stackdumps are produced either).
> Alternatively, any idea what I could do to narrow the problem area down?
> Thanks for ideas; greetings.

This problem has been fixed in subversion rev.50.  MinGW uses msvcrt which does not have a C99-compatible printf.  Thus, all of the new '%z..' and '%j...' formats are ignored.  Something like printf("%zu %s", 42, "M$") crashes.

Re: gdb.  It should catch segfaults.  Were you debugging gdc.exe?  The actual compiler is cc1d.exe.

David

Downs wrote:

> Attempting to build the current rev48 gdc 0.20 branch on mingw/gcc4.0.3;
> the resulting gdc.exe is incapable of compiling even the most basic test
> files; it crashes on configure with a sigsegv in actest.d:0.
> Somewhat related question; is it possible to compile gcc so that it does
> not catch segment violations internally? This "feature" makes it
> impossible for me to get stack traces of the crash in gdb (no stackdumps
> are produced either).
> Alternatively, any idea what I could do to narrow the problem area down?
> Thanks for ideas; greetings.
Will this developement branch have any support for gcc 4.1.x? Mathieu
-- 
Tip of the day:
The Windows 95 CD-ROM makes an excellent skeet shoot target.

Mathieu Chouinard wrote:
> Downs wrote:
> 
> 
>>Attempting to build the current rev48 gdc 0.20 branch on mingw/gcc4.0.3;
>>the resulting gdc.exe is incapable of compiling even the most basic test
>>files; it crashes on configure with a sigsegv in actest.d:0.
>>Somewhat related question; is it possible to compile gcc so that it does
>>not catch segment violations internally? This "feature" makes it
>>impossible for me to get stack traces of the crash in gdb (no stackdumps
>>are produced either).
>>Alternatively, any idea what I could do to narrow the problem area down?
>>Thanks for ideas; greetings.
> 
> Will this developement branch have any support for gcc 4.1.x?
> Mathieu

No, my goal for the next release is just fix critical bugs and to get the DMD 0.176 merge stable.

David

David Friedman wrote:

> Mathieu Chouinard wrote:
>> Downs wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>Attempting to build the current rev48 gdc 0.20 branch on mingw/gcc4.0.3;
>>>the resulting gdc.exe is incapable of compiling even the most basic test
>>>files; it crashes on configure with a sigsegv in actest.d:0.
>>>Somewhat related question; is it possible to compile gcc so that it does
>>>not catch segment violations internally? This "feature" makes it
>>>impossible for me to get stack traces of the crash in gdb (no stackdumps
>>>are produced either).
>>>Alternatively, any idea what I could do to narrow the problem area down?
>>>Thanks for ideas; greetings.
>> 
>> Will this developement branch have any support for gcc 4.1.x? Mathieu
> 
> No, my goal for the next release is just fix critical bugs and to get the DMD 0.176 merge stable.
> 
> David
fair enough ...
Mathieu
-- 
One possible reason that things aren't going according to plan is that there never was a plan in the first place.