Highlights are the improved gdb support, better error messages, better json support, unittest changes, and a number of nuisance compiler bugs fixed.

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.059.zip


http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.044.zip

Thanks to the many people who contributed to this update!

Walter Bright <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote:

> Highlights are the improved gdb support, better error messages, better json support, unittest changes, and a number of nuisance compiler bugs fixed.
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.059.zip
>
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.044.zip
>
> Thanks to the many people who contributed to this update!

First! :p

The future is ever Brighter. Thanks all!

-- 
Simen

On 03/05/10 09:28, Walter Bright wrote:
> Highlights are the improved gdb support, better error messages, better
> json support, unittest changes, and a number of nuisance compiler bugs
> fixed.
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.059.zip
>
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.044.zip
>
> Thanks to the many people who contributed to this update!

Unfortunately, GDB still doesn't work with it over here. Robert is going to try one of my test cases and see what he can see.

Bernard Helyer wrote:
> Unfortunately, GDB still doesn't work with it over here. Robert is going to try one of my test cases and see what he can see.

Good.

On 03/05/10 11:40, Walter Bright wrote:
> Bernard Helyer wrote:
>> Unfortunately, GDB still doesn't work with it over here. Robert is
>> going to try one of my test cases and see what he can see.
>
> Good.

I can't stop laughing. I assume you meant to trim that quote down some!  *g*

On 03/05/10 00:40, Walter Bright wrote:
> Bernard Helyer wrote:
>> Unfortunately, GDB still doesn't work with it over here. Robert is
>> going to try one of my test cases and see what he can see.
>
> Good.

It seems changeset 451, your version of the fix, doesn't work... Despite me testing that it worked when you committed it :/ Reverting the change fixes the issue.

Bernard Helyer wrote:
> On 03/05/10 11:40, Walter Bright wrote:
>> Bernard Helyer wrote:
>>> Unfortunately, GDB still doesn't work with it over here. Robert is
>>> going to try one of my test cases and see what he can see.
>>
>> Good.
> 
> I can't stop laughing. I assume you meant to trim that quote down some!  *g*

LOL, I meant good that Robert is working on it, not good that it doesn't work!

Robert Clipsham wrote:
> It seems changeset 451, your version of the fix, doesn't work... Despite me testing that it worked when you committed it :/ Reverting the change fixes the issue.

Any ideas why?

On 03/05/10 00:59, Walter Bright wrote:
> Any ideas why?

dwarf.c:1525: infobuf->write32(*++pparamidx);        // DW_AT_type

*++pparamidx is 0 (and always seems to be). GDB doesn't like DW_AT_type being 0, if it has no type there shouldn't be a DW_AT_type at all. This said, that code looks wrong, as *++pparamidx is always 0 according to gdb, which it shouldn't be. Replacing it with the old code:
 unsigned x = dwarf_typidx(p->Ptype);
 infobuf->write32(x);        // DW_AT_type
Seems to work most of the time, but breaks when faced with:

void function(void function(void function())) foobar;

And other cases. Simplest solution seems to be to revert the change, but it's up to you what you do... As long as it's fixed I don't care how it's done :)

2.044 seems to work after some tests of mine.

>Many small improvements to error diagnostics and recovery<

I'd like to see few examples of the difference.


>Now all unittests are run, even if some fail<

I have tried to compile this with -unittest :

int sqr(int x) { return x * 2; }
unittest {
    assert(sqr(10) == 100);
}
unittest {
    assert(sqr(5) == 25);
}
void main() {}


It contains two wrong unit tests, but dmd prints just about the first one, maybe I am missing something:
test(3): unittest failure
core.exception.AssertError@test(3): unittest failure

Bye,
bearophile