Thread overview | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
July 29, 2012 [dmd-beta] D 1.075 and 2.060 betas 2 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd1beta.zip http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd2beta.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 _______________________________________________ dmd-beta mailing list dmd-beta@puremagic.com http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta |
July 30, 2012 Re: [dmd-beta] D 1.075 and 2.060 betas 2 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter Bright | What is the status of bug 5570 ("64 bit C ABI not followed for passing structs and complex numbers as function parameters")? There have been a lot of commits related to it, how much still needs to be done? In case anyone has forgotten, that bug was the reason why we didn't release 1.075 six weeks ago. On 30 July 2012 05:35, Walter Bright <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote: > http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd1beta.zip http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd2beta.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 > _______________________________________________ > dmd-beta mailing list > dmd-beta@puremagic.com > http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta _______________________________________________ dmd-beta mailing list dmd-beta@puremagic.com http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta |
July 30, 2012 Re: [dmd-beta] D 1.075 and 2.060 betas 2 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Don Clugston | On 7/30/2012 1:05 AM, Don Clugston wrote: > What is the status of bug 5570 ("64 bit C ABI not followed for passing > structs and complex numbers as function parameters")? > There have been a lot of commits related to it, how much still needs to be done? > In case anyone has forgotten, that bug was the reason why we didn't > release 1.075 six weeks ago. > It works for integral types only, and for floating point types only. It doesn't work if you have and int member and a float member. _______________________________________________ dmd-beta mailing list dmd-beta@puremagic.com http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta |
July 30, 2012 Re: [dmd-beta] D 1.075 and 2.060 betas 2 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter Bright | On 30 July 2012 10:54, Walter Bright <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote: > > On 7/30/2012 1:05 AM, Don Clugston wrote: >> >> What is the status of bug 5570 ("64 bit C ABI not followed for passing >> structs and complex numbers as function parameters")? >> There have been a lot of commits related to it, how much still needs to be >> done? >> In case anyone has forgotten, that bug was the reason why we didn't >> release 1.075 six weeks ago. >> > > It works for integral types only, and for floating point types only. It doesn't work if you have and int member and a float member. Thanks, I'll add that comment to the bug report. _______________________________________________ dmd-beta mailing list dmd-beta@puremagic.com http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta |
July 30, 2012 Re: [dmd-beta] D 1.075 and 2.060 betas 2 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter Bright | On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Walter Bright <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote: > > On 7/30/2012 1:05 AM, Don Clugston wrote: >> >> What is the status of bug 5570 ("64 bit C ABI not followed for passing >> structs and complex numbers as function parameters")? >> There have been a lot of commits related to it, how much still needs to be >> done? >> In case anyone has forgotten, that bug was the reason why we didn't >> release 1.075 six weeks ago. >> > > It works for integral types only, and for floating point types only. It doesn't work if you have and int member and a float member. Handling static arrays the same as structs, ABI-wise, is also not implemented yet. David _______________________________________________ dmd-beta mailing list dmd-beta@puremagic.com http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta |
July 30, 2012 Re: [dmd-beta] D 1.075 and 2.060 betas 2 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to David Nadlinger | On 7/30/12, David Nadlinger <code@klickverbot.at> wrote: >> It works for integral types only, and for floating point types only. It doesn't work if you have and int member and a float member. > > Handling static arrays the same as structs, ABI-wise, is also not implemented yet. How come this 64bit ABI is so hard to implement right? I'm just curious. _______________________________________________ dmd-beta mailing list dmd-beta@puremagic.com http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta |
July 30, 2012 Re: [dmd-beta] D 1.075 and 2.060 betas 2 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Andrej Mitrovic Attachments:
| So is http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8428 officially a wontfix for this release? (I know there's another bug report relevant to its underlying cause, but the changes made to std.algorithm still expose this and break existing code.) On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Andrej Mitrovic < andrej.mitrovich@gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/30/12, David Nadlinger <code@klickverbot.at> wrote: > >> It works for integral types only, and for floating point types only. It doesn't work if you have and int member and a float member. > > > > Handling static arrays the same as structs, ABI-wise, is also not implemented yet. > > How come this 64bit ABI is so hard to implement right? I'm just curious. > _______________________________________________ > dmd-beta mailing list > dmd-beta@puremagic.com > http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta > |
July 30, 2012 Re: [dmd-beta] D 1.075 and 2.060 betas 2 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to David Simcha | On 7/30/12 10:27 AM, David Simcha wrote: > So is http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8428 officially a > wontfix for this release? I think it's quite important we fix that one and its ilk. Andrei _______________________________________________ dmd-beta mailing list dmd-beta@puremagic.com http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta |
July 30, 2012 Re: [dmd-beta] D 1.075 and 2.060 betas 2 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Andrei Alexandrescu | On 30 July 2012 16:28, Andrei Alexandrescu <andrei@erdani.com> wrote: > On 7/30/12 10:27 AM, David Simcha wrote: >> >> So is http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8428 officially a wontfix for this release? > > > I think it's quite important we fix that one and its ilk. Bug 5939 seems to be a Phobos design flaw, and this one is probably related. Unfortunately, I don't think we can fix the problem other than by ripping all Voldemort types out of Phobos. Voldemort Types now appear to be a concept that has tragically flawed semantics, and also has poor performance (see http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5939). Removing them would be a big change to make this late in a release cycle. I don't know what to do here. _______________________________________________ dmd-beta mailing list dmd-beta@puremagic.com http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta |
July 31, 2012 Re: [dmd-beta] D 1.075 and 2.060 betas 2 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Don Clugston | 2012/7/31 Don Clugston <dclugston@gmail.com>: > On 30 July 2012 16:28, Andrei Alexandrescu <andrei@erdani.com> wrote: >> On 7/30/12 10:27 AM, David Simcha wrote: >>> >>> So is http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8428 officially a wontfix for this release? >> >> >> I think it's quite important we fix that one and its ilk. > > Bug 5939 seems to be a Phobos design flaw, and this one is probably related. > Unfortunately, I don't think we can fix the problem other than by > ripping all Voldemort types out of Phobos. Voldemort Types now appear > to be a concept that has tragically flawed semantics, and also has > poor performance (see > http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5939). Removing them > would be a big change to make this late in a release cycle. > I don't know what to do here. I completely agree. Voldemort type is a good idiom, but cannot control the context pointer. I think it requires such enhancement for the compiler. http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8463 Kenji Hara _______________________________________________ dmd-beta mailing list dmd-beta@puremagic.com http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta |
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation