• Walter (1/1) Oct 22 2002 www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
• Burton Radons (31/31) Oct 22 2002 Here's a weird one. I have a function:
• Walter (1/1) Oct 22 2002 I'll have a look. Is this problem new with 0.46?
• Burton Radons (2/3) Oct 22 2002 Yup, this is the same code that wasn't working with 0.45.
• Andrew Edwards (9/9) Oct 22 2002 While you're at it, can you have a look at stream.d? The unit test assum...
• Walter (3/34) Oct 22 2002 I need some help here. What is "color" declared as?
• Burton Radons (21/76) Oct 22 2002 I don't mention such a symbol. If you mean Color, it depended upon
• Burton Radons (21/21) Oct 22 2002 When using WinMain, nothing is setup in Phobos - particularly static
• Sean L. Palmer (7/19) Oct 22 2002 WinMain sucks. There's nothing there that can't be obtained later. I'v...
• Walter (4/25) Oct 22 2002 There's an example in \dmd\samples\d\winsamp.d of how to do a WinMain()....
• Sean L. Palmer (42/42) Oct 22 2002 I wonder if this construct deserves any special support; I find myself
• Patrick Down (13/13) Oct 22 2002 One loop construct that python has that
• Walter (9/50) Oct 22 2002 The compiler will do that optimization automatically (it's called "loop
• Sean L. Palmer (9/70) Oct 23 2002 I guess what I'm asking is if anyone can think of any more loop construc...

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

Burton Radons <loth users.sourceforge.net> writes:

Here's a weird one.  I have a function:

    Color ColorBlend (Color a, Color b, ubyte t);

And a function usage:

    return ColorBlend (colors [c - 1], colors [c], t);

When Color is a typedef uint, it works fine.  When color is a struct 
(which is either each component separate or a wrapper for the uint), I 
get "Internal error: e2ir.c 119".  In the latter case, I can fix it by:

    Color ca = colors [c - 1];
    Color cb = colors [c];
    return ColorBlend (ca, cb, t);

It otherwise compiles, but is producing black and white when the struct 
isn't just a uint wrapper.  Here's another one that messes up:

    Color eval (float x, float y)
    {
        return colors [0];
    }

This returns what appears to be Color.init, while this:

    Color eval (float x, float y)
    {
        Color c = colors [0];
        return c;
    }

Works "properly".  Now, to the grayscale.  I can switch between:

    struct Color { uint value; }
    struct Color { ubyte r, g, b, a; }

With a version switch.  The first one produces proper colors, but the 
second one is grayscale in an odd way.  Changing those to:

    struct Color { int r, g, b, a; }

Fixes it.  I played around and discovered that using:

    struct Color { ubyte r, g, b, a, dontusethisone; }

Fixes it.  So maybe it's a returning-in-register concern.

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

I'll have a look. Is this problem new with 0.46?

Burton Radons <loth users.sourceforge.net> writes:

Walter wrote:
 I'll have a look. Is this problem new with 0.46?

Yup, this is the same code that wasn't working with 0.45.

"Andrew Edwards" <crxace13 comcast.net> writes:

While you're at it, can you have a look at stream.d? The unit test assumes
that line 1150 will write 18 characters when infact it will only write 17.

Thanks,
Andrew

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:ap3bcn$ia5$1 digitaldaemon.com...
| I'll have a look. Is this problem new with 0.46?
|
|

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

I need some help here. What is "color" declared as?

"Burton Radons" <loth users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message
news:ap3a43$h2r$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Here's a weird one.  I have a function:

     Color ColorBlend (Color a, Color b, ubyte t);

 And a function usage:

     return ColorBlend (colors [c - 1], colors [c], t);

 When Color is a typedef uint, it works fine.  When color is a struct
 (which is either each component separate or a wrapper for the uint), I
 get "Internal error: e2ir.c 119".  In the latter case, I can fix it by:

     Color ca = colors [c - 1];
     Color cb = colors [c];
     return ColorBlend (ca, cb, t);

 It otherwise compiles, but is producing black and white when the struct
 isn't just a uint wrapper.  Here's another one that messes up:

     Color eval (float x, float y)
     {
         return colors [0];
     }

 This returns what appears to be Color.init, while this:

     Color eval (float x, float y)
     {
         Color c = colors [0];
         return c;
     }

 Works "properly".  Now, to the grayscale.  I can switch between:

     struct Color { uint value; }
     struct Color { ubyte r, g, b, a; }

 With a version switch.  The first one produces proper colors, but the
 second one is grayscale in an odd way.  Changing those to:

     struct Color { int r, g, b, a; }

 Fixes it.  I played around and discovered that using:

     struct Color { ubyte r, g, b, a, dontusethisone; }

 Fixes it.  So maybe it's a returning-in-register concern.

Burton Radons <loth users.sourceforge.net> writes:

Walter wrote:
 I need some help here. What is "color" declared as?

I don't mention such a symbol.  If you mean Color, it depended upon 
version switches, one of:

     typedef uint Color; // Typedef'd mode
     struct { uint value; } Color; // Wrapped mode
     struct { ubyte r, g, b, a; } Color; // Struct mode

Typedef'd mode had no problems, except that it and Wrapped mode display 
invalid colors when optimising (some kind of shifting problem - I need 
to look into it more).

Wrapped mode and Struct mode don't handle returns from array indices 
properly:

     Color colors [] = new Color [1];
     return a [0]; /* returns Color.init or possibly just nonsense */

Struct mode does not work unless if I include another field that makes 
it larger than four bytes.  When it's normal, all field accesses appear 
to be returning .r; that it's fixed by kicking it to be larger than four 
bytes indicates to me that it's a register return problem.

Struct mode also can't handle passing an array index of it to a function:

     Color colors [] = new Color [1];
     void func (Color c);
     func (colors [0]); /* "Internal error: e2ir.c 119" */

 "Burton Radons" <loth users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message
 news:ap3a43$h2r$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 
Here's a weird one.  I have a function:

    Color ColorBlend (Color a, Color b, ubyte t);

And a function usage:

    return ColorBlend (colors [c - 1], colors [c], t);

When Color is a typedef uint, it works fine.  When color is a struct
(which is either each component separate or a wrapper for the uint), I
get "Internal error: e2ir.c 119".  In the latter case, I can fix it by:

    Color ca = colors [c - 1];
    Color cb = colors [c];
    return ColorBlend (ca, cb, t);

It otherwise compiles, but is producing black and white when the struct
isn't just a uint wrapper.  Here's another one that messes up:

    Color eval (float x, float y)
    {
        return colors [0];
    }

This returns what appears to be Color.init, while this:

    Color eval (float x, float y)
    {
        Color c = colors [0];
        return c;
    }

Works "properly".  Now, to the grayscale.  I can switch between:

    struct Color { uint value; }
    struct Color { ubyte r, g, b, a; }

With a version switch.  The first one produces proper colors, but the
second one is grayscale in an odd way.  Changing those to:

    struct Color { int r, g, b, a; }

Fixes it.  I played around and discovered that using:

    struct Color { ubyte r, g, b, a, dontusethisone; }

Fixes it.  So maybe it's a returning-in-register concern.

 
 
 

Burton Radons <loth users.sourceforge.net> writes:

When using WinMain, nothing is setup in Phobos - particularly static 
constructors.  Is there a single entry point that I can call to 
kickstart it?  Or is it the same sequence as with a DLL:

     gc_init ();
     _minit ();
     _moduleCtor ();
     _moduleUnitTests ();
     ... body ...
     gc_term ();

DInit () and DTerm () would be nicer.  Perhaps we should also define a 
couple new versions.  Specifically:

     version = WinMain; /* Won't spawn a console, wraps with WinMain */
     //version = DLLMain; /* Handles DLLMain instead */

     int main (char [] [] argv)
     {
         hinst = GetModuleHandleA (null);
         ...
     }

I'm working on a windows wrapper, similar to Pavel's project, but with 
more portable intentions.  This would remove the need for putting an 
entry point in the library and calling a library-specific main from there.

"Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer directvinternet.com> writes:

WinMain sucks.  There's nothing there that can't be obtained later.  I've
been using the VC /entrypoint:mainCRTStartup for quite some time now without
needing WinMain at all.

I've often had issues in C++ trying to figure out if I'm compiling a library
to a .DLL or a .EXE.  I usually supply both WinMain and DllMain just in case
and let the linker sort it out.

Sean


 DInit () and DTerm () would be nicer.  Perhaps we should also define a
 couple new versions.  Specifically:

      version = WinMain; /* Won't spawn a console, wraps with WinMain */
      //version = DLLMain; /* Handles DLLMain instead */

      int main (char [] [] argv)
      {
          hinst = GetModuleHandleA (null);
          ...
      }

 I'm working on a windows wrapper, similar to Pavel's project, but with
 more portable intentions.  This would remove the need for putting an
 entry point in the library and calling a library-specific main from there.

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

There's an example in \dmd\samples\d\winsamp.d of how to do a WinMain(). I
admit it's primitive, but it's a start.

"Burton Radons" <loth users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message
news:ap3tmu$2bp3$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 When using WinMain, nothing is setup in Phobos - particularly static
 constructors.  Is there a single entry point that I can call to
 kickstart it?  Or is it the same sequence as with a DLL:

      gc_init ();
      _minit ();
      _moduleCtor ();
      _moduleUnitTests ();
      ... body ...
      gc_term ();

 DInit () and DTerm () would be nicer.  Perhaps we should also define a
 couple new versions.  Specifically:

      version = WinMain; /* Won't spawn a console, wraps with WinMain */
      //version = DLLMain; /* Handles DLLMain instead */

      int main (char [] [] argv)
      {
          hinst = GetModuleHandleA (null);
          ...
      }

 I'm working on a windows wrapper, similar to Pavel's project, but with
 more portable intentions.  This would remove the need for putting an
 entry point in the library and calling a library-specific main from there.

"Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer directvinternet.com> writes:

I wonder if this construct deserves any special support;  I find myself
using it alot:

if (x)
do
{
    blah();
} while (x);

it is basically

while (x)
{
    blah();
}

but having the loop condition at the bottom is usually faster.  I suppose
compilers do this automatically most of the time.

What about:

while (true)
{
    blah();
    if (x == end) break;
    ++x;
}

I'd love to have a "loop" construct that replaces the need for "while(true)"
and "for(;;)".

Another construct that is used alot:

do
{
    a = next();
    if (a==x)
        continue;
    if (a==y)
        continue;
} while(0);

This is equivalent to:

start:
    a = next();
    if (a==x)
        goto start;
    if (a==y)
        goto start;

I think some other languages (IMP? Icon?) have loop constructs that could be
worth looking at.

Sean

Patrick Down <Patrick_member pathlink.com> writes:

One loop construct that python has that 
I like is:

while(x):
if y:

else:


You can do the same with the for statement.
I like it because I often want to do something
if the loop terminates naturally rather that with
a break statement.  The only odd thing about it is
using the "else" keyword for this.  It doesn't 
quite fit.

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

"Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer directvinternet.com> wrote in message
news:ap41fj$8dt$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I wonder if this construct deserves any special support;  I find myself
 using it alot:

 if (x)
 do
 {
     blah();
 } while (x);

 it is basically

 while (x)
 {
     blah();
 }

 but having the loop condition at the bottom is usually faster.  I suppose
 compilers do this automatically most of the time.

The compiler will do that optimization automatically (it's called "loop
rotation").

 What about:

 while (true)
 {
     blah();
     if (x == end) break;
     ++x;
 }

 I'd love to have a "loop" construct that replaces the need for

"while(true)"
 and "for(;;)".

Those are such common idioms, I don't see much benefit in replacing them
with a keyword.

 Another construct that is used alot:

 do
 {
     a = next();
     if (a==x)
         continue;
     if (a==y)
         continue;
 } while(0);

 This is equivalent to:

 start:
     a = next();
     if (a==x)
         goto start;
     if (a==y)
         goto start;

 I think some other languages (IMP? Icon?) have loop constructs that could

be
 worth looking at.

There are endless ways to write loops <g>.

"Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer directvinternet.com> writes:

I guess what I'm asking is if anyone can think of any more loop constructs
that might currently be awkward using the run-of-the-mill for, while, do
loop constructs.  Things where you'd be tempted to use a goto.

Not very important I guess.

Sean

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:ap479o$1b6u$2 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer directvinternet.com> wrote in message
 news:ap41fj$8dt$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I wonder if this construct deserves any special support;  I find myself
 using it alot:

 if (x)
 do
 {
     blah();
 } while (x);

 it is basically

 while (x)
 {
     blah();
 }

 but having the loop condition at the bottom is usually faster.  I


suppose
 compilers do this automatically most of the time.

 The compiler will do that optimization automatically (it's called "loop
 rotation").

 What about:

 while (true)
 {
     blah();
     if (x == end) break;
     ++x;
 }

 I'd love to have a "loop" construct that replaces the need for

 "while(true)"
 and "for(;;)".

 Those are such common idioms, I don't see much benefit in replacing them
 with a keyword.

 Another construct that is used alot:

 do
 {
     a = next();
     if (a==x)
         continue;
     if (a==y)
         continue;
 } while(0);

 This is equivalent to:

 start:
     a = next();
     if (a==x)
         goto start;
     if (a==y)
         goto start;

 I think some other languages (IMP? Icon?) have loop constructs that


could
 be
 worth looking at.

 There are endless ways to write loops <g>.