http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd2beta.zip
_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
dmd-beta@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta

On 6/11/13, Walter Bright <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd2beta.zip
> _______________________________________________
> dmd-beta mailing list
> dmd-beta@puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta
>

__VERSION__ seems to be problematic: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10330

Note that some of us have used __VERSION__ to enable compiler-specific compilation, e.g.:

static assert(__VERSION__ >= 2.063, "This library can only compile
with D 2.063 or newer");

Or:

static if (__VERSION__ < 2.063) { /* implement some compiler/library
workaround here */ }
else { /* use regular code or regular import here */ }

Unfortunately __VERSION__ was never built to be used with these
".point" releases, so maybe we should simply let __VERSION__ always be
2063 for all 2.063 point releases.
_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
dmd-beta@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta

On 6/11/13, Walter Bright <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd2beta.zip
> _______________________________________________
> dmd-beta mailing list
> dmd-beta@puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta
>

RDMD is slightly old in this release, there were two pulls merged in the meantime. Please rebuild RDMD and package it:

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10331
_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
dmd-beta@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta

When it comes to the release, will all the packages have the incremented version number?

Best regards,
Marco
_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
dmd-beta@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta

On 6/11/13, Walter Bright <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd2beta.zip

irstate.h is missing from the source files, making the compiler un-compilable from that source:

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10333
_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
dmd-beta@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta

On 6/11/13, Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/11/13, Walter Bright <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>>
>> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd2beta.zip
>
> irstate.h is missing from the source files, making the compiler un-compilable from that source:
>
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10333
>

Nevermind, my error, I was looking in the wrong source tree.
_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
dmd-beta@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta

On 6/11/2013 5:45 AM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
>
> RDMD is slightly old in this release, there were two pulls merged in
> the meantime. Please rebuild RDMD and package it:
>
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10331
>

Were those regression fixes?
_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
dmd-beta@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta

On 6/11/13, Walter Bright <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote:
> Were those regression fixes?

No, but why does it matter? RDMD is a separate project, which happens
to be distributed with DMD. Why not keep the latest version of RDMD
with the latest version of the compiler?
_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
dmd-beta@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta

On 6/11/2013 5:48 AM, Marco Leise wrote:
> When it comes to the release, will all the packages have the incremented version number?

Sure, unless some problem emerges.
_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
dmd-beta@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta

On 6/11/2013 5:34 AM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
>
> __VERSION__ seems to be problematic:
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10330
>
> Note that some of us have used __VERSION__ to enable compiler-specific
> compilation, e.g.:
>
> static assert(__VERSION__ >= 2.063, "This library can only compile
> with D 2.063 or newer");
>
> Or:
>
> static if (__VERSION__ < 2.063) { /* implement some compiler/library
> workaround here */ }
> else { /* use regular code or regular import here */ }
>
> Unfortunately __VERSION__ was never built to be used with these
> ".point" releases, so maybe we should simply let __VERSION__ always be
> 2063 for all 2.063 point releases.
>

I think a good fix will be to adjust the computation of __VERSION__. I'll put my Top Men on it.
_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
dmd-beta@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta