digitalmars.D.announce - DMD 0.153 release
- Walter Bright (2/2) Apr 10 2006 Bug fixes.
- John Demme (2/5) Apr 10 2006
- Jarrett Billingsley (5/7) Apr 10 2006 And what's this _smart linking_ that's so important as to be required to...
- Walter Bright (5/15) Apr 10 2006 Naw. "smart linking" is a marketing term that appeared in the 1980's
- Derek Parnell (14/30) Apr 10 2006 Is a 'code section' equivalent to a D module? In other words, if I have
- Derek Parnell (10/37) Apr 10 2006 Never mind, I just did a test and it seems to be at the function level.
- Walter Bright (4/22) Apr 10 2006 Each module is made up of multiple sections. Smart linking relies on the...
- =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jari-Matti_M=E4kel=E4?= (5/28) Apr 12 2006 This is really impressive - the resulting Linux binaries now seem to be
- clayasaurus (2/5) Apr 10 2006 nice work : )
- David L. Davis (8/10) Apr 10 2006 Walter, I just wanted to thank you for all you hard work you're been put...
- akcom (2/5) Apr 10 2006 Superb as always :)
- Kyle Furlong (2/5) Apr 11 2006 Steadily marching towards 1.0! Have you set criterion for when that will...
- =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jari-Matti_M=E4kel=E4?= (6/13) Apr 11 2006 Aside from bugs there's still some minor work to do with imports and
- pragma (5/7) Apr 11 2006 Thank you Walter. :)
- Sean Kelly (2/2) Apr 11 2006 Thanks for removing the std.regexp dependency on std.outbuffer :-)
- Walter Bright (4/5) Apr 11 2006 It still depends on it, I just removed a couple of the cases. The rest
- Sean Kelly (5/11) Apr 11 2006 Oops, you're right--I must have missed the build message after removing
- r (4/6) Apr 11 2006 as learning lurker
- Walter Bright (2/2) Apr 11 2006 Thanks to all who said 'thanks.' Your appreciation makes it all
- Georg Wrede (4/6) Apr 11 2006 And not only us, but (as really I believe it,) Mankind!
- Chris Miller (6/8) Apr 12 2006 I don't say it enough (or at all), so thanks!
- John Reimer (3/15) Apr 13 2006 Totally agree!
- Charles (3/24) Apr 13 2006 Yep, its been a fun ride :D. Thanks from me too.
- Stewart Gordon (14/17) Apr 13 2006 "Changed parameter types for std.date.MakeDate and std.date.MakeTime so
- Walter Bright (4/22) Apr 14 2006 Because sometimes very large values are passed to these functions. I
- Stewart Gordon (11/25) Apr 16 2006 But what is the practical use of being able to pass such huge arguments
- Walter Bright (4/18) Apr 16 2006 Test programs often aren't practical; they test the limits. And the
Bug fixes. http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
Apr 10 2006
Walter, you're machine! Walter Bright wrote:Bug fixes. http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
Apr 10 2006
"Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:e1egd4$flk$1 digitaldaemon.com...Bug fixes. http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.htmlAnd what's this _smart linking_ that's so important as to be required to be in italics? ;) Something big coming soon for D?
Apr 10 2006
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:"Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:e1egd4$flk$1 digitaldaemon.com...Naw. "smart linking" is a marketing term that appeared in the 1980's that refers to the linker discarding unreferenced code sections. Since it's a bit of jargon, I italicized it. Optlink has been doing it for 15+ years, ld only recently.Bug fixes. http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.htmlAnd what's this _smart linking_ that's so important as to be required to be in italics? ;) Something big coming soon for D?
Apr 10 2006
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 18:25:49 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:Jarrett Billingsley wrote:Is a 'code section' equivalent to a D module? In other words, if I have three D modules, each one is in its own unique code section. And thus if I'm not referencing anything in one of those modules and I include the module.obj in the command line, the linker will discard that module from the resulting executable file? Or is 'code section' more finely grained than that, say down to the function level? -- Derek (skype: derek.j.parnell) Melbourne, Australia "Down with mediocracy!" 11/04/2006 11:40:18 AM"Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:e1egd4$flk$1 digitaldaemon.com...Naw. "smart linking" is a marketing term that appeared in the 1980's that refers to the linker discarding unreferenced code sections. Since it's a bit of jargon, I italicized it. Optlink has been doing it for 15+ years, ld only recently.Bug fixes. http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.htmlAnd what's this _smart linking_ that's so important as to be required to be in italics? ;) Something big coming soon for D?
Apr 10 2006
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 11:43:28 +1000, Derek Parnell wrote:On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 18:25:49 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:Never mind, I just did a test and it seems to be at the function level. That is, optlink discards functions that are not referenced even if other functions in the same module are referenced. -- Derek (skype: derek.j.parnell) Melbourne, Australia "Down with mediocracy!" 11/04/2006 11:48:48 AMJarrett Billingsley wrote:Is a 'code section' equivalent to a D module? In other words, if I have three D modules, each one is in its own unique code section. And thus if I'm not referencing anything in one of those modules and I include the module.obj in the command line, the linker will discard that module from the resulting executable file? Or is 'code section' more finely grained than that, say down to the function level?"Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:e1egd4$flk$1 digitaldaemon.com...Naw. "smart linking" is a marketing term that appeared in the 1980's that refers to the linker discarding unreferenced code sections. Since it's a bit of jargon, I italicized it. Optlink has been doing it for 15+ years, ld only recently.Bug fixes. http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.htmlAnd what's this _smart linking_ that's so important as to be required to be in italics? ;) Something big coming soon for D?
Apr 10 2006
Derek Parnell wrote:On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 11:43:28 +1000, Derek Parnell wrote:Each module is made up of multiple sections. Smart linking relies on the compiler emitting a separate section for each function. You can see this by running obj2asm on it.On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 18:25:49 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:Never mind, I just did a test and it seems to be at the function level. That is, optlink discards functions that are not referenced even if other functions in the same module are referenced.Naw. "smart linking" is a marketing term that appeared in the 1980's that refers to the linker discarding unreferenced code sections. Since it's a bit of jargon, I italicized it. Optlink has been doing it for 15+ years, ld only recently.Is a 'code section' equivalent to a D module? In other words, if I have three D modules, each one is in its own unique code section. And thus if I'm not referencing anything in one of those modules and I include the module.obj in the command line, the linker will discard that module from the resulting executable file? Or is 'code section' more finely grained than that, say down to the function level?
Apr 10 2006
Walter Bright wrote:Derek Parnell wrote:This is really impressive - the resulting Linux binaries now seem to be several hundreds of kilobytes smaller! A big thanks. -- Jari-MattiOn Tue, 11 Apr 2006 11:43:28 +1000, Derek Parnell wrote:Each module is made up of multiple sections. Smart linking relies on the compiler emitting a separate section for each function. You can see this by running obj2asm on it.On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 18:25:49 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:Never mind, I just did a test and it seems to be at the function level. That is, optlink discards functions that are not referenced even if other functions in the same module are referenced.Naw. "smart linking" is a marketing term that appeared in the 1980's that refers to the linker discarding unreferenced code sections. Since it's a bit of jargon, I italicized it. Optlink has been doing it for 15+ years, ld only recently.Is a 'code section' equivalent to a D module? In other words, if I have three D modules, each one is in its own unique code section. And thus if I'm not referencing anything in one of those modules and I include the module.obj in the command line, the linker will discard that module from the resulting executable file? Or is 'code section' more finely grained than that, say down to the function level?
Apr 12 2006
Walter Bright wrote:Bug fixes. http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.htmlnice work : )
Apr 10 2006
In article <e1egd4$flk$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...Bug fixes. http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.htmlWalter, I just wanted to thank you for all you hard work you're been putting into the D! :) David L. ------------------------------------------------------------------- "Dare to reach for the Stars...Dare to Dream, Build, and Achieve!" ------------------------------------------------------------------- MKoD: http://spottedtiger.tripod.com/D_Language/D_Main_XP.html
Apr 10 2006
Walter Bright wrote:Bug fixes. http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.htmlSuperb as always :)
Apr 10 2006
Walter Bright wrote:Bug fixes. http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.htmlSteadily marching towards 1.0! Have you set criterion for when that will be Walter?
Apr 11 2006
Kyle Furlong wrote:Walter Bright wrote:Aside from bugs there's still some minor work to do with imports and interfaces - maybe dynamic libraries on linux too ;) Otherwise we're almost there :) -- Jari-MattiBug fixes. http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.htmlSteadily marching towards 1.0! Have you set criterion for when that will be Walter?
Apr 11 2006
In article <e1egd4$flk$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...Bug fixes. http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.htmlThank you Walter. :) the time to fix it so quickly. - EricAnderton at yahoo
Apr 11 2006
Thanks for removing the std.regexp dependency on std.outbuffer :-) Sean
Apr 11 2006
Sean Kelly wrote:Thanks for removing the std.regexp dependency on std.outbuffer :-)It still depends on it, I just removed a couple of the cases. The rest needs to go, too. The reason outbuffer is in there is because when I originally wrote regexp, the D arrays were not as powerful as they are now.
Apr 11 2006
Walter Bright wrote:Sean Kelly wrote:Oops, you're right--I must have missed the build message after removing OutBuffer. No worries. I'll just keep OutBuffer around a bit longer then. It's still nice see all this getting sorted out. SeanThanks for removing the std.regexp dependency on std.outbuffer :-)It still depends on it, I just removed a couple of the cases. The rest needs to go, too. The reason outbuffer is in there is because when I originally wrote regexp, the D arrays were not as powerful as they are now.
Apr 11 2006
In article <e1egd4$flk$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...Bug fixes. http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.htmlas learning lurker thanx for your super work! r
Apr 11 2006
Thanks to all who said 'thanks.' Your appreciation makes it all worthwhile for me.
Apr 11 2006
Walter Bright wrote:Thanks to all who said 'thanks.' Your appreciation makes it all worthwhile for me.And not only us, but (as really I believe it,) Mankind! Honestly. georg
Apr 11 2006
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 17:10:45 -0400, Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> wrote:Thanks to all who said 'thanks.' Your appreciation makes it all worthwhile for me.I don't say it enough (or at all), so thanks! Even if D does not become a success, a lot of us have learned a lot along the way, and that's all what really matters to me. - Chris
Apr 12 2006
Chris Miller wrote:On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 17:10:45 -0400, Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> wrote:Totally agree! -JJRThanks to all who said 'thanks.' Your appreciation makes it all worthwhile for me.I don't say it enough (or at all), so thanks! Even if D does not become a success, a lot of us have learned a lot along the way, and that's all what really matters to me. - Chris
Apr 13 2006
Yep, its been a fun ride :D. Thanks from me too. Charlie John Reimer wrote:Chris Miller wrote:On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 17:10:45 -0400, Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> wrote:Totally agree! -JJRThanks to all who said 'thanks.' Your appreciation makes it all worthwhile for me.I don't say it enough (or at all), so thanks! Even if D does not become a success, a lot of us have learned a lot along the way, and that's all what really matters to me. - Chris
Apr 13 2006
Walter Bright wrote:Bug fixes. http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html"Changed parameter types for std.date.MakeDate and std.date.MakeTime so they won't overflow." What you've done here makes no sense to me. Why is abusing the d_time type necessary to prevent an overflow? I.e. how does any of the following: - making the parameters long, considering that d_time is an alias of long anyway - casting the ints to longs within the function - making TicksPerHour et al long still lead to an overflow? I refer you back to http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.bugs/2365 Also, why are none of the Make* and *FromTime functions documented? Stewart.
Apr 13 2006
Stewart Gordon wrote:Walter Bright wrote:Because sometimes very large values are passed to these functions. I have a test app that does that.Bug fixes. http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html"Changed parameter types for std.date.MakeDate and std.date.MakeTime so they won't overflow." What you've done here makes no sense to me. Why is abusing the d_time type necessary to prevent an overflow? I.e. how does any of the following: - making the parameters long, considering that d_time is an alias of long anyway - casting the ints to longs within the function - making TicksPerHour et al long still lead to an overflow?Also, why are none of the Make* and *FromTime functions documented?Sloth on my part.
Apr 14 2006
Walter Bright wrote:Stewart Gordon wrote:<snip>But what is the practical use of being able to pass such huge arguments as the day or month? Still, people are no doubt already confused by the idea that you're supposed to pass a number of milliseconds since 1970 as the year, month, day, hour, minute, second or millisecond component when constructing a date/time. At least, these parameters should be long rather than d_time. Unless I'm missing something then there's nothing to lose, and some sanity in the code (and eventual documentation) to gain. Stewart.What you've done here makes no sense to me. Why is abusing the d_time type necessary to prevent an overflow? I.e. how does any of the following: - making the parameters long, considering that d_time is an alias of long anyway - casting the ints to longs within the function - making TicksPerHour et al long still lead to an overflow?Because sometimes very large values are passed to these functions. I have a test app that does that.
Apr 16 2006
Stewart Gordon wrote:Walter Bright wrote:Test programs often aren't practical; they test the limits. And the limits should work without silent overflow.Because sometimes very large values are passed to these functions. I have a test app that does that.But what is the practical use of being able to pass such huge arguments as the day or month?Still, people are no doubt already confused by the idea that you're supposed to pass a number of milliseconds since 1970 as the year, month, day, hour, minute, second or millisecond component when constructing a date/time.The only thing confusing is it isn't documented.At least, these parameters should be long rather than d_time. Unless I'm missing something then there's nothing to lose, and some sanity in the code (and eventual documentation) to gain. Stewart.
Apr 16 2006