http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.beta.4.zip

Remaining regressions:

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&bug_severity=regression&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED

I just realised yesterday that the libs bundled with dmd (curl.lib in my
case) doesn't have a win64 version bundled. Can you put a binary for that
in lib64?
... although it new appears to be gone completely in that new bundle. Is
that the new standard? Is there somewhere they should be sourced?

Can you also rename the libs in lib64/ to remove the '64' on the end? That's pretty annoying in build script to have different lib names.


On 28 October 2013 13:23, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:

> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/**dmd.2.064.beta.4.zip<http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.beta.4.zip>
>
> Remaining regressions:
>
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/**buglist.cgi?query_format=**
> advanced&bug_severity=**regression&bug_status=NEW&bug_**
> status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=**REOPENED<http://d.puremagic.com/issues/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&bug_severity=regression&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED>
>

On 10/27/2013 10:09 PM, Manu wrote:
> I just realised yesterday that the libs bundled with dmd (curl.lib in my case)
> doesn't have a win64 version bundled. Can you put a binary for that in lib64?
> ... although it new appears to be gone completely in that new bundle. Is that
> the new standard? Is there somewhere they should be sourced?

They never were there in the zip files, though the windows installer will download them.


> Can you also rename the libs in lib64/ to remove the '64' on the end? That's
> pretty annoying in build script to have different lib names.

They've had the 64 suffix for a year now. Why is it an issue now? It would also require changing the compiler and the scripts all at the last minute, and would presumably break peoples' existing scripts?

On 28 October 2013 17:29, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:

> On 10/27/2013 10:09 PM, Manu wrote:
>
>> I just realised yesterday that the libs bundled with dmd (curl.lib in my
>> case)
>> doesn't have a win64 version bundled. Can you put a binary for that in
>> lib64?
>> ... although it new appears to be gone completely in that new bundle. Is
>> that
>> the new standard? Is there somewhere they should be sourced?
>>
>
> They never were there in the zip files, though the windows installer will download them.


Ah, well wherever they come from, it's a problem that only one exists.


 Can you also rename the libs in lib64/ to remove the '64' on the end?
>> That's
>> pretty annoying in build script to have different lib names.
>>
>
> They've had the 64 suffix for a year now. Why is it an issue now? It would also require changing the compiler and the scripts all at the last minute, and would presumably break peoples' existing scripts?
>

Because we're finally cleaning it all up, might as well finish the job.
The linux libs right next door aren't named separately. Consistency is nice.

Refer to Don's talk. Removing hacks in build scripts (or any code) is
usually met with rejoice :)

On Monday, 28 October 2013 at 10:13:22 UTC, Manu wrote:
> On 28 October 2013 17:29, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/27/2013 10:09 PM, Manu wrote:
> Refer to Don's talk. Removing hacks in build scripts (or any code) is
> usually met with rejoice :)

While we are at it:

std.complex vs complex literals?

On 28 October 2013 14:36, eles <eles@eles.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 28 October 2013 at 10:13:22 UTC, Manu wrote:
>>
>> On 28 October 2013 17:29, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/27/2013 10:09 PM, Manu wrote:
>>
>> Refer to Don's talk. Removing hacks in build scripts (or any code) is
>> usually met with rejoice :)
>
>
> While we are at it:
>
> std.complex vs complex literals?

Complex isn't deprecated yet... but it has been in the pipeline for a few years now.

-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';

On 10/28/2013 9:56 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> On 28 October 2013 14:36, eles <eles@eles.com> wrote:
>> While we are at it:
>>
>> std.complex vs complex literals?
>
> Complex isn't deprecated yet... but it has been in the pipeline for a
> few years now.

Also, asking for such changes really doesn't belong in the beta thread.

On Monday, 28 October 2013 at 05:09:35 UTC, Manu wrote:
> I just realised yesterday that the libs bundled with dmd (curl.lib in my
> case) doesn't have a win64 version bundled. Can you put a binary for that
> in lib64?
> ... although it new appears to be gone completely in that new bundle. Is
> that the new standard? Is there somewhere they should be sourced?

As Walter said, curl is installed by the installer and isn't included with dmd. I'll try to find some time to make a new curl zip that includes a 64 bit curl.

On Monday, 28 October 2013 at 17:16:42 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 10/28/2013 9:56 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>> On 28 October 2013 14:36, eles <eles@eles.com> wrote:
> Also, asking for such changes really doesn't belong in the beta thread.

Yes, sorry about that.

Anyway, the bikeshed is still out there for painting.

On 29 October 2013 03:21, Brad Anderson <eco@gnuk.net> wrote:

> On Monday, 28 October 2013 at 05:09:35 UTC, Manu wrote:
>
>> I just realised yesterday that the libs bundled with dmd (curl.lib in my
>> case) doesn't have a win64 version bundled. Can you put a binary for that
>> in lib64?
>> ... although it new appears to be gone completely in that new bundle. Is
>> that the new standard? Is there somewhere they should be sourced?
>>
>
> As Walter said, curl is installed by the installer and isn't included with dmd. I'll try to find some time to make a new curl zip that includes a 64 bit curl.
>

Explains why it disappeared when unzipping the new build ;) Cheers. That'd be tops.