www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Should we make DMD1.051 the recommended stable version?

reply Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:
The standard download still points to DMD1.030 (May 2008).
A couple of hundred serious bugs have been fixed since that time.
Some of the intermediate releases had regressions which prevented many 
people from using them, but I don't think that's true of this one. I 
think it's a great release.

The known regressions of DMD1.051 compared to DMD1.030 are:

2393 IFTI regression on (T:char)(T[]) vs (T:dchar)(T[])
370  Compiler stack overflow on recursive typeof in function declaration.
3469 ICE(func.c): Regression. Calling non-template function as a 
template, from another module

but in my opinion these are not serious enough to prevent 1.051 from 
being recommended. (BTW I've already sent Walter patches for those 
second two bugs).

I'd like to protect newbies from encountering internal compiler errors 
which have already been fixed, and from experiencing frustration with CTFE.

If anyone has a reason that they have to use 1.030 instead of 1.051, now 
would be a great time to say why.
Nov 18 2009
next sibling parent =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Don wrote:

 The standard download still points to DMD1.030 (May 2008).
 A couple of hundred serious bugs have been fixed since that time.
 Some of the intermediate releases had regressions which prevented many 
 people from using them, but I don't think that's true of this one. I 
 think it's a great release.


[...]

 I'd like to protect newbies from encountering internal compiler errors 
 which have already been fixed, and from experiencing frustration with CTFE.
 
 If anyone has a reason that they have to use 1.030 instead of 1.051, now 
 would be a great time to say why.


Not saying "have to", but it was matching the GDC version I had:
svn co https://dgcc.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/dgcc/trunk/ gdc

Updating would mean getting the patches from the unofficial tree:
hg clone http://bitbucket.org/goshawk/gdc/


But as long as it is working properly, I could do some installers
along with the build patches already needed for Vista and Leopard.

They would probably have been at DMD 1.020 - had it not been for
the issue with Tango not working with that version (i.e. GDC 0.24)


http://gdcwin.sourceforge.net/

http://gdcmac.sourceforge.net/

--anders
Nov 18 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Don" <nospam nospam.com> wrote in message 
news:he0d7l$34k$1 digitalmars.com...

 The standard download still points to DMD1.030 (May 2008).
 A couple of hundred serious bugs have been fixed since that time.
 Some of the intermediate releases had regressions which prevented many 
 people from using them, but I don't think that's true of this one. I think 
 it's a great release.

 The known regressions of DMD1.051 compared to DMD1.030 are:

 2393 IFTI regression on (T:char)(T[]) vs (T:dchar)(T[])
 370  Compiler stack overflow on recursive typeof in function declaration.
 3469 ICE(func.c): Regression. Calling non-template function as a template, 
 from another module

 but in my opinion these are not serious enough to prevent 1.051 from being 
 recommended. (BTW I've already sent Walter patches for those second two 
 bugs).

 I'd like to protect newbies from encountering internal compiler errors 
 which have already been fixed, and from experiencing frustration with 
 CTFE.

 If anyone has a reason that they have to use 1.030 instead of 1.051, now 
 would be a great time to say why.


The only potential problem I see with that is that if you want to use tango, 
any DMD beyond 1.043 would force you to go with tango trunk, which wouldn't 
make much sense for anyone who is trying to stick with "stable" releases of 
things.
Nov 18 2009
parent reply "Denis Koroskin" <2korden gmail.com> writes:
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:15:47 +0300, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:


 "Don" <nospam nospam.com> wrote in message
 news:he0d7l$34k$1 digitalmars.com...

 The standard download still points to DMD1.030 (May 2008).
 A couple of hundred serious bugs have been fixed since that time.
 Some of the intermediate releases had regressions which prevented many
 people from using them, but I don't think that's true of this one. I  
 think
 it's a great release.

 The known regressions of DMD1.051 compared to DMD1.030 are:

 2393 IFTI regression on (T:char)(T[]) vs (T:dchar)(T[])
 370  Compiler stack overflow on recursive typeof in function  
 declaration.
 3469 ICE(func.c): Regression. Calling non-template function as a  
 template,
 from another module

 but in my opinion these are not serious enough to prevent 1.051 from  
 being
 recommended. (BTW I've already sent Walter patches for those second two
 bugs).

 I'd like to protect newbies from encountering internal compiler errors
 which have already been fixed, and from experiencing frustration with
 CTFE.

 If anyone has a reason that they have to use 1.030 instead of 1.051, now
 would be a great time to say why.


 The only potential problem I see with that is that if you want to use  
 tango,
 any DMD beyond 1.043 would force you to go with tango trunk, which  
 wouldn't
 make much sense for anyone who is trying to stick with "stable" releases  
 of
 things.


Recent poll has shown that most people use Tango trunk anyway. Perhaps,  
it's time for another Tango release?
Nov 18 2009
next sibling parent Moritz Warning <moritzwarning web.de> writes:
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:19:11 +0300, Denis Koroskin wrote:


 On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:15:47 +0300, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:
 

 "Don" <nospam nospam.com> wrote in message
 news:he0d7l$34k$1 digitalmars.com...

 The standard download still points to DMD1.030 (May 2008). A couple of
 hundred serious bugs have been fixed since that time. Some of the
 intermediate releases had regressions which prevented many people from
 using them, but I don't think that's true of this one. I think
 it's a great release.

 The known regressions of DMD1.051 compared to DMD1.030 are:

 2393 IFTI regression on (T:char)(T[]) vs (T:dchar)(T[]) 370  Compiler
 stack overflow on recursive typeof in function declaration.
 3469 ICE(func.c): Regression. Calling non-template function as a
 template,
 from another module

 but in my opinion these are not serious enough to prevent 1.051 from
 being
 recommended. (BTW I've already sent Walter patches for those second
 two bugs).

 I'd like to protect newbies from encountering internal compiler errors
 which have already been fixed, and from experiencing frustration with
 CTFE.

 If anyone has a reason that they have to use 1.030 instead of 1.051,
 now would be a great time to say why.


 The only potential problem I see with that is that if you want to use
 tango,
 any DMD beyond 1.043 would force you to go with tango trunk, which
 wouldn't
 make much sense for anyone who is trying to stick with "stable"
 releases of
 things.


 Recent poll has shown that most people use Tango trunk anyway. Perhaps,
 it's time for another Tango release?


1.051 looks like a good choice for a stable dmd version.
I think that a new Tango release is underway already.
Nov 18 2009
prev sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Denis Koroskin" <2korden gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:op.u3k8d9i9o7cclz dkoroskin.saber3d.local...

 On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:15:47 +0300, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:


 "Don" <nospam nospam.com> wrote in message
 news:he0d7l$34k$1 digitalmars.com...

 The standard download still points to DMD1.030 (May 2008).
 A couple of hundred serious bugs have been fixed since that time.
 Some of the intermediate releases had regressions which prevented many
 people from using them, but I don't think that's true of this one. I 
 think
 it's a great release.

 The known regressions of DMD1.051 compared to DMD1.030 are:

 2393 IFTI regression on (T:char)(T[]) vs (T:dchar)(T[])
 370  Compiler stack overflow on recursive typeof in function 
 declaration.
 3469 ICE(func.c): Regression. Calling non-template function as a 
 template,
 from another module

 but in my opinion these are not serious enough to prevent 1.051 from 
 being
 recommended. (BTW I've already sent Walter patches for those second two
 bugs).

 I'd like to protect newbies from encountering internal compiler errors
 which have already been fixed, and from experiencing frustration with
 CTFE.

 If anyone has a reason that they have to use 1.030 instead of 1.051, now
 would be a great time to say why.


 The only potential problem I see with that is that if you want to use 
 tango,
 any DMD beyond 1.043 would force you to go with tango trunk, which 
 wouldn't
 make much sense for anyone who is trying to stick with "stable" releases 
 of
 things.


 Recent poll has shown that most people use Tango trunk anyway. Perhaps, 
 it's time for another Tango release?


I don't think anyone would disagree that it's long past time for another 
Tango release ;)

But, I would venture to guess very few people stick with DMD "stable" 
either, probably even fewer than Tango 0.99.8. Heck, DMD's "stable" gets 
updated less often than Tango's "stable" releases.

Personally, I don't see much of a reason for D1/Tango users not to use DMD 
1.051 / Tango trunk, at least until Tango 0.99.9 comes out. But I just felt 
that for anyone who does want to stick with DMD's "stable" for whatever 
reason, it's likely they may want to stick with latest "stable" for Tango 
too. (Assuming, of course, that they want to use tango...not that that's a 
vary large assumption for a D1 user).
Nov 18 2009
parent reply Tomas Lindquist Olsen <tomas.l.olsen gmail.com> writes:
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:

 "Denis Koroskin" <2korden gmail.com> wrote in message
 news:op.u3k8d9i9o7cclz dkoroskin.saber3d.local...

 On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:15:47 +0300, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:


 "Don" <nospam nospam.com> wrote in message
 news:he0d7l$34k$1 digitalmars.com...

 The standard download still points to DMD1.030 (May 2008).
 A couple of hundred serious bugs have been fixed since that time.
 Some of the intermediate releases had regressions which prevented many
 people from using them, but I don't think that's true of this one. I
 think
 it's a great release.

 The known regressions of DMD1.051 compared to DMD1.030 are:

 2393 IFTI regression on (T:char)(T[]) vs (T:dchar)(T[])
 370 =C2=A0Compiler stack overflow on recursive typeof in function
 declaration.
 3469 ICE(func.c): Regression. Calling non-template function as a
 template,
 from another module

 but in my opinion these are not serious enough to prevent 1.051 from
 being
 recommended. (BTW I've already sent Walter patches for those second tw=








o

 bugs).

 I'd like to protect newbies from encountering internal compiler errors
 which have already been fixed, and from experiencing frustration with
 CTFE.

 If anyone has a reason that they have to use 1.030 instead of 1.051, n=








ow

 would be a great time to say why.


 The only potential problem I see with that is that if you want to use
 tango,
 any DMD beyond 1.043 would force you to go with tango trunk, which
 wouldn't
 make much sense for anyone who is trying to stick with "stable" release=






s

 of
 things.


 Recent poll has shown that most people use Tango trunk anyway. Perhaps,
 it's time for another Tango release?


 I don't think anyone would disagree that it's long past time for another
 Tango release ;)

 But, I would venture to guess very few people stick with DMD "stable"
 either, probably even fewer than Tango 0.99.8. Heck, DMD's "stable" gets
 updated less often than Tango's "stable" releases.

 Personally, I don't see much of a reason for D1/Tango users not to use DM=


D

 1.051 / Tango trunk, at least until Tango 0.99.9 comes out. But I just fe=


lt

 that for anyone who does want to stick with DMD's "stable" for whatever
 reason, it's likely they may want to stick with latest "stable" for Tango
 too. (Assuming, of course, that they want to use tango...not that that's =


a

 vary large assumption for a D1 user).


It would also be possible to just release tango 0.99.8.1 (or
something), LDC has a patch against 0.99.8 that probably fixes it for
the latest dmd as well.
Nov 18 2009
parent bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Tomas Lindquist Olsen:


 It would also be possible to just release tango 0.99.8.1 (or
 something), LDC has a patch against 0.99.8 that probably fixes it for
 the latest dmd as well.


Just a note: after 0.99 there is 0.100 then 0.101, etc. It's not a real number,
it's a concatenation of natural numbers in a tree.

Bye,
bearophile
Nov 18 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent Long Chang <changedalone gmail.com> writes:
2009/11/18 Don <nospam nospam.com>


 If anyone has a reason that they have to use 1.030 instead of 1.051, now
 would be a great time to say why.


dmd 1.030 build small execute file size on windows.


I use bud build the dwt.lib. then use "dmd -L+dwt.lib" build the execute
file. it is much fast then other ways.

the problem is , execute file size  is become very big since dmd 1.41 .
I try dwt-win and dwt Shawn Liu ,  the  execute file size  is both grow big=
.

I try dmd 1.035 to dmd 1.041, the  execute file size  is similar,  build
Snippet38 the size is 850kb.

I try dmd 1.041 to dmd1052,  the file size is 1.7M=A1=A3

my os is Window XP.

I use " bud all.d -clean -full -allobj -ofdwt -release -O -I../ -lib " to
build dwt.lib.


I use " dmd1040 Snippet38.d  -IE:\dmd\gui\dwt1
-L+advapi32_dwt.lib+gdi32_dwt.lib+comctl32_dwt.lib+comdlg32.lib+imm32_dwt.l=
ib+kernel32_dwt.lib+msimg32_dwt.lib+ole32_dwt.lib+oleacc_dwt.lib+oleaut32_d=
wt.lib+olepro32_dwt.lib+shell32_dwt.lib+user32_dwt.lib+usp10_dwt.lib+versio=
n_dwt.lib+uuid.lib+dwt.lib
-L/SUBSYSTEM:windows:4 " to build Snippet38 .

I spent a lot of time on this issue,  and post some mail to newsgroup.
may be because my poor english, no body reply.
Nov 18 2009
prev sibling parent Long Chang <changedalone gmail.com> writes:
2009/11/18 Don <nospam nospam.com>

If anyone has a reason that they have to use 1.030 instead of 1.051, now

 would be a great time to say why.


dmd 1.030 build small execute file size on windows.


I use bud build the dwt.lib. then use "dmd -L+dwt.lib" build the execute
file. it is much fast then other ways.

the problem is , execute file size  is become very big since dmd 1.41 .
I try dwt-win and dwt Shawn Liu ,  the  execute file size  is both grow big=
.

I try dmd 1.035 to dmd 1.041, the  execute file size  is similar,  build
Snippet38 the size is 850kb.

I try dmd 1.041 to dmd1052,  the file size is 1.7M=A1=A3

my os is Window XP.

I use " bud all.d -clean -full -allobj -ofdwt -release -O -I../ -lib " to
build dwt.lib.


I use " dmd1040 Snippet38.d  -IE:\dmd\gui\dwt1
-L+advapi32_dwt.lib+gdi32_dwt.lib+comctl32_dwt.lib+comdlg32.lib+imm32_dwt.l=
ib+kernel32_dwt.lib+msimg32_dwt.lib+ole32_dwt.lib+oleacc_dwt.lib+oleaut32_d=
wt.lib+olepro32_dwt.lib+shell32_dwt.lib+user32_dwt.lib+usp10_dwt.lib+versio=
n_dwt.lib+uuid.lib+dwt.lib
-L/SUBSYSTEM:windows:4 " to build Snippet38 .

I spent a lot of time on this issue,  and post some mail to newsgroup.
may be because my poor english, no body reply.
Nov 18 2009