That is, all the errors:

1) DMD errors and warnings. (has been fixed in GDC already)
   http://www.algonet.se/~afb/d/diffs/dmd-0.140-gdc-0.17.diff.gz

2) Phobos errors and exceptions.
   http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.bugs/2001
   http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.bugs/3170

Currently they are printed to stdout, which is just plain *wrong*.

Another 1.0 showstopper...
--anders

Anders F Björklund wrote:
> That is, all the errors:
> 
> 1) DMD errors and warnings. (has been fixed in GDC already)
>    http://www.algonet.se/~afb/d/diffs/dmd-0.140-gdc-0.17.diff.gz
> 
> 2) Phobos errors and exceptions.
>    http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.bugs/2001
>    http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.bugs/3170
> 
> Currently they are printed to stdout, which is just plain *wrong*.
> 
> Another 1.0 showstopper...
> --anders

Luckily this is easy to fix.

Anders F Björklund wrote:
> That is, all the errors:
> 
> 1) DMD errors and warnings. (has been fixed in GDC already)
>    http://www.algonet.se/~afb/d/diffs/dmd-0.140-gdc-0.17.diff.gz
> 
> 2) Phobos errors and exceptions.
>    http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.bugs/2001
>    http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.bugs/3170
> 
> Currently they are printed to stdout, which is just plain *wrong*.
> 
> Another 1.0 showstopper...
> --anders

What about pragma(msg, ...)?
Maybe it doesn't matter, it's currently unspecified whether it does anything at all.

Jari-Matti Mäkelä wrote:

>> Currently they are printed to stdout, which is just plain *wrong*.

> Luckily this is easy to fix.

That is what *you* think :-)


It's been several years since this particular bug was first reported.

--anders

Don Clugston wrote:

> What about pragma(msg, ...)?
> Maybe it doesn't matter, it's currently unspecified whether it does anything at all.

For GDC it's simple, since stuff on stdout gets sent to the assembler ?
(This why the old DMD behaviour broke all builds with "gdc -pipe", BTW)

So pragma(msg, ...) also goes on stderr. Same as with #warning, for C ?

--anders

Anders F Björklund wrote:
> It's been several years since this particular bug was first reported.

Yes, I know. I think it's not priority number one on Walters bugfix list since (AFAIK) Walter develops DMD mainly on Windows platform. Windows 9x and DOSes do not fully support stderr.

Jari-Matti Mäkelä wrote:

> Windows 9x and DOSes do not fully support stderr.

Does Windows NT (2K/XP) have a sane shell ? Great!

As I recall it Windows 9x also had Unicode issues...

--anders

Anders F Björklund wrote:
> Jari-Matti Mäkelä wrote:
> 
>> Windows 9x and DOSes do not fully support stderr.
> 
> 
> Does Windows NT (2K/XP) have a sane shell ? Great!

I haven't been using Windows for a while, but AFAIK all WinNT 4/5/... are aware of stderr and stderr redirection. Even DOSes work fine with the help of proprietary extensions (4DOS) or an antificial GNU environment (DJGPP, Cygwin, ...)

> 
> As I recall it Windows 9x also had Unicode issues...

I think Windows 9x console doesn't support anything else than 8-bit code pages. :(

But that's one big reason why I'm using Linux ;)

In article <dnp8l1$11p8$1@digitaldaemon.com>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jari-Matti_M=E4kel=E4?= says...
>
>Anders F Björklund wrote:
>> It's been several years since this particular bug was first reported.
>
>Yes, I know. I think it's not priority number one on Walters bugfix list since (AFAIK) Walter develops DMD mainly on Windows platform. Windows 9x and DOSes do not fully support stderr.

But they will still output messages 'put' to 'stderr' (even if stderr redirection and such is not fully supported), correct? If so IMO there's no good reason for not changing this behaviour just because D needs to support Win9X. (I mean, forget the "version (Win9X)" type of stuff and just make the change universally).

I agree, this really needs to be changed. All of the Linux folks and half the Windows folks would go nuts seeing 'error' information put to stdout, especially from the library routines.

Dave wrote:

> I agree, this really needs to be changed. All of the Linux folks and half the
> Windows folks would go nuts seeing 'error' information put to stdout, especially
> from the library routines.

I think you mean "have been going", instead of "would go" ;-)

--anders