www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - Beta 2.075.0-b1

reply Martin Nowak <code+news.digitalmars dawg.eu> writes:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

First beta for the 2.075.0 release.

This release comes with various phobos additions, a repackaged
std.datetime, configurable Fiber stack guard pages (now also on
Posix), and optional precise scanning for the DATA/TLS segment (static
data) on Windows.

http://dlang.org/download.html#dmd_beta
http://dlang.org/changelog/2.075.0.html

Please report any bugs at https://issues.dlang.org

- -Martin

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJZUPXVAAoJELJzgRYSuxk5m9oP/0kj1oTeNQeILn3MB54GHXI8
bl8wm5JlZAyuIyMlcIU2ZL8sWhVdiTK0TvBGp0GH7o5pDxj+Kg06Pd5YG2OS9Ynh
YyEisLqD9e+ssYYfYSwo5lasbl1pluM+TYZnaokqSeOkmKoBDy13/caM4DV7Kmmj
YWxBPa4F6RCH2ogD80QRdk13w2TOUYxRiBTobUquNNMJDG2Dj2FxSKJ5E4qSOiVm
WK2rUulyumx+I+So4AkBdc4sy7UUdiDI3Jp7TgrDrXLn7Z/J3fL6uL5zEKTeWSyF
8k1PrxgichrNODEd2VA7qF4ibkGgr2jAC89isdiIFVOCjF84A5mAFnHbYojE6Rzp
4lEfB2kxmoN4mQ+K4JpEhZhxPD05pT2UycJGp1iRFchSpqKjyqtdZq5cdRzlkSFC
v5N4k8xX3AC+slVRqdGP3v326wCYCEmEeyKd7V0Er6nch2ZochZt0Y2xa5St9t4S
KzL57rdP1IWwkW0a4tHyRlAsBiqBTuUeqZlvpdOhaCO494WW8OdhVzkHpzPkKQTV
NpbtNecw+lzMFLijQJuZVUcwbWGUtuQ1A0nD58kNRYIs6rQpXEEdpWE6XOAbE1X5
SExrViP8+7OK6EsFzK8r3lNykw+3Fylc9JgiIR6dFnfGTdLyXUA7luROMrTeKtHl
0ARAwLlU3ZwTB6sZRbUD
=z0ku
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Jun 26 2017
next sibling parent Nemanja Boric <4burgos gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 26 June 2017 at 11:53:57 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:

 First beta for the 2.075.0 release.

 This release comes with various phobos additions, a repackaged 
 std.datetime, configurable Fiber stack guard pages (now also on 
 Posix), and optional precise scanning for the DATA/TLS segment 
 (static data) on Windows.

 http://dlang.org/download.html#dmd_beta 
 http://dlang.org/changelog/2.075.0.html

 Please report any bugs at https://issues.dlang.org

 - -Martin


Martin,

there's a PR for the changelog which needs to be merged: 
https://github.com/dlang/druntime/pull/1821
Jun 26 2017
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Dsby <dushibaiyu yahoo.com> writes:
On Monday, 26 June 2017 at 11:53:57 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:

 First beta for the 2.075.0 release.

 This release comes with various phobos additions, a repackaged 
 std.datetime, configurable Fiber stack guard pages (now also on 
 Posix), and optional precise scanning for the DATA/TLS segment 
 (static data) on Windows.

 http://dlang.org/download.html#dmd_beta 
 http://dlang.org/changelog/2.075.0.html

 Please report any bugs at https://issues.dlang.org

 - -Martin



what about DIP1000? Is it default?
Jun 27 2017
next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 6/27/2017 12:51 AM, Dsby wrote:

 what about DIP1000? Is it default?


No.
Jun 28 2017
next sibling parent reply Dsby <dushibaiyu yahoo.com> writes:
On Thursday, 29 June 2017 at 01:44:10 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 6/27/2017 12:51 AM, Dsby wrote:

 what about DIP1000? Is it default?


 No.


When will it be default? 2.076 or 2.077?
Jun 28 2017
parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 6/28/2017 7:09 PM, Dsby wrote:

 On Thursday, 29 June 2017 at 01:44:10 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 6/27/2017 12:51 AM, Dsby wrote:

 what about DIP1000? Is it default?


 No.


 
 When will it be default? 2.076 or 2.077?


I don't know at the moment. Currently, Phobos doesn't compile with it on
because 
Phobos has some safety violations in it that need correction.

I expect a lot of existing code will have similar issues, and so we'll need a 
long period before making it the default.
Jun 29 2017
prev sibling parent reply "H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-announce" writes:
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 06:44:10PM -0700, Walter Bright via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

 On 6/27/2017 12:51 AM, Dsby wrote:

 what about DIP1000? Is it default?


 
 No.


I've been seeing occasional linker errors when compiling with -dip1000
that go away when I drop -dip1000. However, I haven't had the time to
reduce the code sufficiently to file a bug.  Is this a known issue, or
should I schedule some time to reduce my code and file a bug?


T

-- 
Those who've learned LaTeX swear by it. Those who are learning LaTeX swear at
it. -- Pete Bleackley
Jun 28 2017
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 6/28/2017 7:02 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

 I've been seeing occasional linker errors when compiling with -dip1000
 that go away when I drop -dip1000. However, I haven't had the time to
 reduce the code sufficiently to file a bug.  Is this a known issue, or
 should I schedule some time to reduce my code and file a bug?


There was a known problem with that that was corrected by Rainer. I don't know 
if this means you've found another case or not.
Jun 29 2017
parent "H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-announce" writes:
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 12:27:33AM -0700, Walter Bright via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

 On 6/28/2017 7:02 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

 I've been seeing occasional linker errors when compiling with
 -dip1000 that go away when I drop -dip1000. However, I haven't had
 the time to reduce the code sufficiently to file a bug.  Is this a
 known issue, or should I schedule some time to reduce my code and
 file a bug?


 
 There was a known problem with that that was corrected by Rainer. I
 don't know if this means you've found another case or not.


FYI I tried compiling with -dip1000 again on git HEAD, and it seems that
the linker errors have gone away. So probably it was the same problem.
If I see it again next time, I'll try to find some time to reduce it and
file a bug.


T

-- 
In theory, software is implemented according to the design that has been
carefully worked out beforehand. In practice, design documents are written
after the fact to describe the sorry mess that has gone on before.
Jun 29 2017
prev sibling parent reply Martin Nowak <code dawg.eu> writes:
On Tuesday, 27 June 2017 at 07:51:07 UTC, Dsby wrote:

 what about DIP1000? Is it default?


We'd definitely mention such a big change in our changelog. At 
the moment scope support is still experimental with a couple of 
known issues 
(https://issues.dlang.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=%5Bscope%5D).
Fixing those and adding safe unique, ref-counted, and weak-ref 
primitives to druntime/phobos is a major focus for the 2nd half 
of 2017.
Jul 04 2017
parent reply Dsby <dushibaiyu yahoo.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 4 July 2017 at 20:41:08 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:

 On Tuesday, 27 June 2017 at 07:51:07 UTC, Dsby wrote:

 what about DIP1000? Is it default?


 We'd definitely mention such a big change in our changelog. At 
 the moment scope support is still experimental with a couple of 
 known issues 
 (https://issues.dlang.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=%5Bscope%5D).
 Fixing those and adding safe unique, ref-counted, and weak-ref 
 primitives to druntime/phobos is a major focus for the 2nd half 
 of 2017.


Will add in language :  ref  weak?
is it DIP47?
Or in library？
Jul 04 2017
parent reply Martin Nowak <code dawg.eu> writes:
On Wednesday, 5 July 2017 at 01:40:49 UTC, Dsby wrote:

 Will add in language :  ref  weak?
 is it DIP47?
 Or in library？


We should be able to do it as library types.
The only case we currently know that might need help from the 
compiler, is passing multiple mutable rc/uniq references.

int boom(ref RC!S a, ref RC!int b)
{
    destroy(a);
    return b; // a might have been the sole owner of b
}

We might get away with disallowing calls with arguments, where 
one potentially owns the other. It looks like a minor use-case to 
me.
Incrementing the ref-count around the call was another option, 
but that wouldn't work with unique ownership.
Jul 05 2017
parent Dsby <dushibaiyu yahoo.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 5 July 2017 at 07:25:34 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:

 On Wednesday, 5 July 2017 at 01:40:49 UTC, Dsby wrote:

 Will add in language :  ref  weak?
 is it DIP47?
 Or in library？


 We should be able to do it as library types.
 The only case we currently know that might need help from the 
 compiler, is passing multiple mutable rc/uniq references.

 int boom(ref RC!S a, ref RC!int b)
 {
    destroy(a);
    return b; // a might have been the sole owner of b
 }

 We might get away with disallowing calls with arguments, where 
 one potentially owns the other. It looks like a minor use-case 
 to me.
 Incrementing the ref-count around the call was another option, 
 but that wouldn't work with unique ownership.


Wait for the std.rc.
Jul 06 2017
prev sibling parent reply Mario =?UTF-8?B?S3LDtnBsaW4=?= <kroeplin.d googlemail.com> writes:
"Deprecation: Comparison between different enumeration types 
const(Status) and Status; If this behavior is intended consider 
using std.conv.asOriginalType"

It' not really intended to disallow comparisons between 
const(Status) and Status, isn't it?

BTW:
There's a regression: running dmd with option -deps results in a 
segmentation fault. We can try to reduce the example.
Jun 27 2017
parent Martin Nowak <code dawg.eu> writes:
On Tuesday, 27 June 2017 at 10:46:38 UTC, Mario Kröplin wrote:

 It' not really intended to disallow comparisons between 
 const(Status) and Status, isn't it?


Sure not, please file a regression.


 BTW:
 There's a regression: running dmd with option -deps results in 
 a segmentation fault. We can try to reduce the example.


Yes, please do. Maybe dustmite can help you 
https://github.com/CyberShadow/DustMite/wiki/Detecting-a-segfault-in-dmd-itself.
Jul 04 2017