Robert Clipsham wrote:
> On 04/05/10 19:50, Walter Bright wrote:
>> That's the problem with D extensions; unless they get officially adopted
>> they conflict with future changes to the spec. We need to get them
>> officially adopted.
> 
> Too late for this, DWARF 4 has introduced conflicts with them already. We could try and get them pushed for dwarf 4, but if they get in the values of the tags will have to change (not really a problem, as only one debugger supports them I think, and to my knowledge it isn't widely used for D yet... So we'd be able to talk to the developers and work around this). I'd be willing to take action to get them pushed for DWARF 4 or (if it's too late for that) DWARF 5, if that's OK with you?

Yes, do it!

On 04/05/10 20:43, Walter Bright wrote:
> Yes, do it!

I have submitted a proposal, I'm currently awaiting confirmation that it has been received. I'll let you know how/if it progresses and paste links if I can so you can track it yourself :)

Yay that was fast :)

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 1:30 AM, Walter Bright <newshound1@digitalmars.com>wrote:

> This is to fix the unittest and dwarf screwups in the last release.
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.060.zip
>
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.045.zip
>



-- 
-Arth

Walter Bright, el  4 de mayo a las 10:52 me escribiste:
> Robert Clipsham wrote:
> >Still a long way to go though, various (much!) smaller issues that
> >need fixing... If no one else gets to them I'll go on a debug
> >fixing spree at some point in a couple of months and see if we
> >can't get bug #4044 (debugging tracker) closed :)
> 
> I agree that getting all the gdb issues sorted out will be a nice win.

Specially now that GDB will support D natively!

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Los sueños de los niños son especialmente importantes en su etapa de
formación; si un niño no sueña es que será un pelotudo toda la vida.
	-- Ricardo Vaporeso

On 04/05/10 20:43, Walter Bright wrote:
> Yes, do it!

http://dwarfstd.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=100504.1

Please feel free to comment on it/make corrections :)

On 05/05/10 20:36, Robert Clipsham wrote:
> On 04/05/10 20:43, Walter Bright wrote:
>> Yes, do it!
>
> http://dwarfstd.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=100504.1
>
> Please feel free to comment on it/make corrections :)

"This has been assigned issue #100504.1.

We are not accepting extension proposals for DWARF Version 4,
but will consider this for the next version."

Looks like we'll have to wait a while for its inclusion. In the mean time could I suggest we move the DW_TAG's of dmd's extensions to the area of the spec specified for language specific extensions? I'm not sure if this was specified in DWARF 2 which dmd uses, or what the range is (I don't have the spec to hand), but it would be good not to conflict with DWARF 4.

Another good idea could be to decide how else DWARF could be extended to help with debug info so we have more chance of getting some useful things for debugging into DWARF 5.

Walter Bright wrote:
> This is to fix the unittest and dwarf screwups in the last release.
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.060.zip
> 
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.045.zip

Hi,

The fixes are good but when I compile, for example, the following simplified code:

import std.stdio;
import core.sync.condition;
import core.sync.mutex;
import std.contracts;
import std.regex;
import std.date;

void foo(int x, int y)
{
	currentPipedProcessWhateverYouLike = new PipedProcessWhateverYouLike();
}

It takes ~40 seconds 50% load on the dual core processor(CentOS 5.3 kernel 2.6.32.4), to get the actual error messages about the undefined identifier.

As I said this example is simplified and I need to wait more in the real
project, while compiling the BDE itself, eventually I kill the never ending dmd process and go back to the v2.043 which has no such problem.

I guess the problem is a spell checker. It would be much better to make this feature optional(if this is the problem), if this cannot be done in other way.


Alex Makhotin,
the founder of BITPROX,
http://bitprox.com

Robert Clipsham wrote:
> On 05/05/10 20:36, Robert Clipsham wrote:
>> On 04/05/10 20:43, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> Yes, do it!
>>
>> http://dwarfstd.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=100504.1
>>
>> Please feel free to comment on it/make corrections :)
> 
> "This has been assigned issue #100504.1.
> 
> We are not accepting extension proposals for DWARF Version 4,
> but will consider this for the next version."
> 
> Looks like we'll have to wait a while for its inclusion. In the mean time could I suggest we move the DW_TAG's of dmd's extensions to the area of the spec specified for language specific extensions? I'm not sure if this was specified in DWARF 2 which dmd uses, or what the range is (I don't have the spec to hand), but it would be good not to conflict with DWARF 4.

Good idea.

> 
> Another good idea could be to decide how else DWARF could be extended to help with debug info so we have more chance of getting some useful things for debugging into DWARF 5.

Alex Makhotin wrote:
> It takes ~40 seconds 50% load on the dual core processor(CentOS 5.3 kernel 2.6.32.4), to get the actual error messages about the undefined identifier.

Definitely there's a problem.

Walter Bright wrote:
> Alex Makhotin wrote:
>> It takes ~40 seconds 50% load on the dual core processor(CentOS 5.3 kernel 2.6.32.4), to get the actual error messages about the undefined identifier.
> 
> Definitely there's a problem.

The problem is the spell checker is O(n*n) on the number of characters in the undefined identifier.