Digital Mars - digitalmars.D.announce - dmd 1.054 and 2.038 release

BCS <none anon.com> writes:

Hello Walter,

 Happy New Year!
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.054.zip
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.038.zip
 Many thanks to the numerous people who contributed to this update.
 



New updates, Always nice to see! Damn, I like to see those long list of bugs!

Dec 31 2009

BCS <none anon.com> writes:

Hello Walter,

 Happy New Year!
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.054.zip
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.038.zip
 Many thanks to the numerous people who contributed to this update.
 


Oh cool, I think I'm going to like this one: 2816: "Sudden-death static assert 
is not very useful"

12 Grammar fixes? Sweeeeet!

Dec 31 2009

bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:

Walter Bright:
 Happy New Year!


Happy end of the year to you too!
Is this the last release for the 2009? ;-)

This is funny:
min(x, y) = 10;    // sets x to 10

This looks by far like the most useful improvement/change of this DMD release,
I've already tried it and I like it a lot, thanks to Don and to you!
Bugzilla 2816: Sudden-death static assert is not very useful<


Bye,
bearophile

Dec 31 2009

Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:

bearophile wrote:
 This is funny: min(x, y) = 10;    // sets x to 10
 
 This looks by far like the most useful improvement/change of this DMD
 release, I've already tried it and I like it a lot, thanks to Don and
 to you!


A lot of credit also goes to Andrei for design issues, and some others 
who also submitted bugzilla reports and patches, such as Rainer Schuetze.

I don't think the min() example is that useful, I can't think of when I 
ever needed it. But min() is important as one of those metaprogramming 
"litmus tests" that are the canary that indicates whether one has a 
complete system or not.

Dec 31 2009

Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:

bearophile wrote:
 Walter Bright:
 Happy New Year!


 Happy end of the year to you too!
 Is this the last release for the 2009? ;-)
 
 This is funny:
 min(x, y) = 10;    // sets x to 10
 
 This looks by far like the most useful improvement/change of this DMD release,
I've already tried it and I like it a lot, thanks to Don and to you!
 Bugzilla 2816: Sudden-death static assert is not very useful<




I can't take credit for that. It comes from the LDC guys, I just 
enhanced it slightly.
There are 26 Bugzilla votes fixed in this release, which is probably a 
record. (I'm assuming bug 1961('scoped const') is considered to be fixed).

Dec 31 2009

Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:

Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
(I'm assuming bug 1961('scoped const') is considered to be 
 fixed).


 Sadly, it's not fixed yet :(
 
 
 struct S
 {
     int x;
     inout(int)* getX() inout { return &x;}
 }
 
 void main()
 {
     S s;
     int *x = s.getX();
 }
 
 
 testinout.d(10): Error: function testinout.S.getX () inout is not 
 callable using argument types ()
 testinout.d(10): Error: cannot implicitly convert expression (s.getX()) 
 of type inout(int)* to int*
 
 It appears the auto-conversion is not happening on the return, and also 
 the call isn't working.


The inout on the return has to be at the top level, as in inout(int *). 
This probably needs improvement.

Dec 31 2009

Jason House <jason.james.house gmail.com> writes:

Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 The only thing I could get to work is this:
 
 
 struct S
 {
      int x;
 }
 
 inout(int *) getSX(inout S* s) { return &s.x;}
 
 void main()
 {
      S s;
      const(S)* sp = &s;
      int *x = getSX(&s);
      //int *y = getSX(sp);  // uncomment this line for an error
      const(int) *y = getSX(sp);
 }
 
 If you uncomment the designated line, the error reads:
 
 testinout.d(13): Error: cannot implicitly convert expression (getSX(sp))
 of type const(int*) to int*
 
 which looks good.


The error looks misleading to me.  The error is with the input argument to 
the function, not the return type.

Jan 01 2010

Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:

Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:20:08 -0500, Walter Bright 
 <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote:
 
 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 (I'm assuming bug 1961('scoped const') is considered to be fixed).


   struct S
 {
     int x;
     inout(int)* getX() inout { return &x;}
 }
  void main()
 {
     S s;
     int *x = s.getX();
 }
   testinout.d(10): Error: function testinout.S.getX () inout is not 
 callable using argument types ()
 testinout.d(10): Error: cannot implicitly convert expression 
 (s.getX()) of type inout(int)* to int*
  It appears the auto-conversion is not happening on the return, and 
 also the call isn't working.


 The inout on the return has to be at the top level, as in inout(int 
 *). This probably needs improvement.


 Yes, this is an important distinction.
 
 With your recommended change, the error is now:
 
 testinout.d(4): Error: inout on return means inout must be on a 
 parameter as well for inout inout(int*)()
 
 inout doesn't seem to work with ref either.  The only thing I could get 
 to work is this:
 
 
 struct S
 {
     int x;
 }
 
 inout(int *) getSX(inout S* s) { return &s.x;}
 
 void main()
 {
     S s;
     const(S)* sp = &s;
     int *x = getSX(&s);
     //int *y = getSX(sp);  // uncomment this line for an error
     const(int) *y = getSX(sp);
 }
 
 If you uncomment the designated line, the error reads:
 
 testinout.d(13): Error: cannot implicitly convert expression (getSX(sp)) 
 of type const(int*) to int*
 
 which looks good.
 
 -Steve


Well I'm sorry to tell that inout is useless as currently implemented. 
One important motivating use case was:

inout(char)[] blah(inout(char)[] input) {
     return input;
}

void main()
{
     blah("xyz");
     blah("xyz".dup);
}

That doesn't work at all. The second motivating case also doesn't work:

class A {
     A _next;
     inout A next() inout { return _next; }
}

void main()
{
     auto a = new A;
     const b = a;
     auto c = a.next();
     auto d = b.next();
}

There are few, if any, cases where the current inout does help. The good 
news is that most of the implementation effort has been done so probably 
making things work will not be very difficult.


Andrei

Jan 01 2010

Jason House <jason.james.house gmail.com> writes:

Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:

 struct S
 {
      int x;
      inout(int)* getX() inout { return &x;}
 }
 
 void main()
 {
      S s;
      int *x = s.getX();
 }
 
 
 testinout.d(10): Error: function testinout.S.getX () inout is not callable  
 using argument types ()


That's the same error message as
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3642
Does that error message ever pop up in a meaningful context???

 testinout.d(10): Error: cannot implicitly convert expression (s.getX()) of  
 type inout(int)* to int*


At least in this case, there are other error messages that give a strong hint
to what the real cause is. I'm still crossing my fingers that 3642 can be
improved in some way.

Dec 31 2009

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 15:05:56 -0500, Don <nospam nospam.com> wrote:

 bearophile wrote:
 Walter Bright:
 Happy New Year!


 Is this the last release for the 2009? ;-)
  This is funny:
 min(x, y) = 10;    // sets x to 10
  This looks by far like the most useful improvement/change of this DMD  
 release, I've already tried it and I like it a lot, thanks to Don and  
 to you!
 Bugzilla 2816: Sudden-death static assert is not very useful<




 I can't take credit for that. It comes from the LDC guys, I just  
 enhanced it slightly.
 There are 26 Bugzilla votes fixed in this release, which is probably a  
 record. (I'm assuming bug 1961('scoped const') is considered to be  
 fixed).


Sadly, it's not fixed yet :(


struct S
{
     int x;
     inout(int)* getX() inout { return &x;}
}

void main()
{
     S s;
     int *x = s.getX();
}


testinout.d(10): Error: function testinout.S.getX () inout is not callable  
using argument types ()
testinout.d(10): Error: cannot implicitly convert expression (s.getX()) of  
type inout(int)* to int*

It appears the auto-conversion is not happening on the return, and also  
the call isn't working.

I'm surprised this was listed as an implemented feature...  Is there some  
test code that you were using to confirm this Walter?

-Steve

Dec 31 2009

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:20:08 -0500, Walter Bright  
<newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 (I'm assuming bug 1961('scoped const') is considered to be fixed).


   struct S
 {
     int x;
     inout(int)* getX() inout { return &x;}
 }
  void main()
 {
     S s;
     int *x = s.getX();
 }
   testinout.d(10): Error: function testinout.S.getX () inout is not  
 callable using argument types ()
 testinout.d(10): Error: cannot implicitly convert expression (s.getX())  
 of type inout(int)* to int*
  It appears the auto-conversion is not happening on the return, and  
 also the call isn't working.


 The inout on the return has to be at the top level, as in inout(int *).  
 This probably needs improvement.


Yes, this is an important distinction.

With your recommended change, the error is now:

testinout.d(4): Error: inout on return means inout must be on a parameter  
as well for inout inout(int*)()

inout doesn't seem to work with ref either.  The only thing I could get to  
work is this:


struct S
{
     int x;
}

inout(int *) getSX(inout S* s) { return &s.x;}

void main()
{
     S s;
     const(S)* sp = &s;
     int *x = getSX(&s);
     //int *y = getSX(sp);  // uncomment this line for an error
     const(int) *y = getSX(sp);
}

If you uncomment the designated line, the error reads:

testinout.d(13): Error: cannot implicitly convert expression (getSX(sp))  
of type const(int*) to int*

which looks good.

-Steve

Jan 01 2010

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 11:16:00 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu  
<SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:
 Well I'm sorry to tell that inout is useless as currently implemented.  
 One important motivating use case was:

 inout(char)[] blah(inout(char)[] input) {
      return input;
 }

 void main()
 {
      blah("xyz");
      blah("xyz".dup);
 }

 That doesn't work at all.


Yeah, I think walter said the inout currently must apply to the entire  
parameter/return value.  That is a severe limitation I think, but the fact  
that it parses makes me think it's a simple fix.  It's almost like the  
type system is working right, but the trigger to convert inout back and  
forth isn't firing.

 The second motivating case also doesn't work:

 class A {
      A _next;
      inout A next() inout { return _next; }
 }

 void main()
 {
      auto a = new A;
      const b = a;
      auto c = a.next();
      auto d = b.next();
 }


I found that inout member functions don't work at all.  It's almost as if  
the compiler ignores the inout designation when doing the inout const  
match.

 There are few, if any, cases where the current inout does help. The good  
 news is that most of the implementation effort has been done so probably  
 making things work will not be very difficult.


Yeah, I just was disappointed that it was listed as implemented.  Half  
implemented is ok, as long as it will be fixed.

-Steve

Jan 01 2010

Ary Borenszweig <ary esperanto.org.ar> writes:

Walter Bright wrote:
 Happy New Year!
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.054.zip
 
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.038.zip
 
 Many thanks to the numerous people who contributed to this update.


Very nice!

In http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/function.html#auto-ref-functions the 
links for auto function and ref function are broken.

Happy New Year!
Ary

Dec 31 2009

grauzone <none example.net> writes:

Walter Bright wrote:
 Happy New Year!
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.054.zip
 
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.038.zip
 
 Many thanks to the numerous people who contributed to this update.


Tons of bug fixes == great!

But I have a problem: the compiler is either extremely slow for me, or 
is stuck in an endless loop. All it does is to slowly allocate memory. I 
aborted the compilation after ~ 20 minutes and 2 GB RAM allocation. This 
wasn't the case with dmd 1.053, where it only took 5-10 seconds to compile.

Can anyone confirm this?

Dec 31 2009

bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:

grauzone:
 But I have a problem: the compiler is either extremely slow for me, or 
 is stuck in an endless loop. All it does is to slowly allocate memory. I 
 aborted the compilation after ~ 20 minutes and 2 GB RAM allocation. This 
 wasn't the case with dmd 1.053, where it only took 5-10 seconds to compile.
 Can anyone confirm this?


Show the code!

Bye,
bearophile

Dec 31 2009

grauzone <none example.net> writes:

bearophile wrote:
 grauzone:
 But I have a problem: the compiler is either extremely slow for me, or 
 is stuck in an endless loop. All it does is to slowly allocate memory. I 
 aborted the compilation after ~ 20 minutes and 2 GB RAM allocation. This 
 wasn't the case with dmd 1.053, where it only took 5-10 seconds to compile.
 Can anyone confirm this?


 Show the code!


I was going to say "but it's hundreds of modules", but then I tried to 
compile some other big hog of code: Tango.

And I found compiling this file hangs:
http://dsource.org/projects/tango/browser/trunk/tango/core/tools/Demangler.d?rev=5248

The exact command line for this was:
dmd -c -I../tango/core -I.. -I../tango/core/vendor -release 
-oftango-core-tools-Demangler-release.o ../tango/core/tools/Demangler.d

Again, could anyone confirm this?

Anyway, no time for this anymore, it's going to be 2010 soon here.

 Bye,
 bearophile

Dec 31 2009

Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:

Moritz Warning wrote:
 On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 21:22:58 +0100, grauzone wrote:
 
 bearophile wrote:
 grauzone:
 But I have a problem: the compiler is either extremely slow for me, or
 is stuck in an endless loop. All it does is to slowly allocate memory.
 I aborted the compilation after ~ 20 minutes and 2 GB RAM allocation.
 This wasn't the case with dmd 1.053, where it only took 5-10 seconds
 to compile. Can anyone confirm this?




 compile some other big hog of code: Tango.

 And I found compiling this file hangs:
 http://dsource.org/projects/tango/browser/trunk/tango/core/tools/


 The exact command line for this was:
 dmd -c -I../tango/core -I.. -I../tango/core/vendor -release
 -oftango-core-tools-Demangler-release.o ../tango/core/tools/Demangler.d

 Again, could anyone confirm this?

 Anyway, no time for this anymore, it's going to be 2010 soon here.

 Bye,
 bearophile




 
 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3663


It's caused by the patch for bug 400.

Jan 01 2010

Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:

Moritz Warning wrote:
 On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 22:35:12 +0000, Moritz Warning wrote:
 
 On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 19:31:49 +0100, Don wrote:

 Moritz Warning wrote:
 On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 21:22:58 +0100, grauzone wrote:

 bearophile wrote:
 grauzone:
 But I have a problem: the compiler is either extremely slow for me,
 or is stuck in an endless loop. All it does is to slowly allocate
 memory. I aborted the compilation after ~ 20 minutes and 2 GB RAM
 allocation. This wasn't the case with dmd 1.053, where it only took
 5-10 seconds to compile. Can anyone confirm this?




 to compile some other big hog of code: Tango.

 And I found compiling this file hangs:
 http://dsource.org/projects/tango/browser/trunk/tango/core/tools/


 The exact command line for this was:
 dmd -c -I../tango/core -I.. -I../tango/core/vendor -release
 -oftango-core-tools-Demangler-release.o
 ../tango/core/tools/Demangler.d

 Again, could anyone confirm this?

 Anyway, no time for this anymore, it's going to be 2010 soon here.

 Bye,
 bearophile





 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3663





 But now there is another problem/regression:

 tango/net/device/Berkeley.d(1065): Error: enum member
 tango.net.device.Berkeley.IPv4Address.ADDR_ANY conflicts with enum
 member tango.net.device.Berkeley.IPv4Address.ADDR_ANY at
 tango/net/device/ Berkeley.d(1065)
 tango/net/device/Berkeley.d(1066): Error: enum member
 tango.net.device.Berkeley.IPv4Address.ADDR_NONE conflicts with enum
 member tango.net.device.Berkeley.IPv4Address.ADDR_NONE at tango/net/
 device/Berkeley.d(1066)
 tango/net/device/Berkeley.d(1067): Error: enum member
 tango.net.device.Berkeley.IPv4Address.PORT_ANY conflicts with enum
 member tango.net.device.Berkeley.IPv4Address.PORT_ANY at
 tango/net/device/ Berkeley.d(1067)


 I've made a ticket:
 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3664
 
 (tested with original dmd 1.054)

Jan 01 2010