www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - DMD 1.013 release

reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Bug fixes, some of them rather nasty.

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.013.zip
Apr 19 2007
next sibling parent reply Deewiant <deewiant.doesnotlike.spam gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.013.zip


The file doesn't exist.

-- 
Remove ".doesnotlike.spam" from the mail address.
Apr 19 2007
parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Deewiant wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.013.zip


 
 The file doesn't exist.


Should be there now!
Apr 19 2007
prev sibling next sibling parent "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:f08epc$gkk$1 digitalmars.com...

 Bug fixes, some of them rather nasty.

 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.013.zip


Wee!  1121 fixed.

And I guess all those _other_ ones are OK too ;)
Apr 19 2007
prev sibling next sibling parent "Frank Benoit (keinfarbton)" <benoit tionex.removethispart.de> writes:
Walter Bright schrieb:

 Bug fixes, some of them rather nasty.
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
 
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.013.zip


Thanks for all these bug fixes.
Apr 19 2007
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Tom S <h3r3tic remove.mat.uni.torun.pl> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Bug fixes, some of them rather nasty.
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
 
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.013.zip


Thank you thank you thank you thank you :D

Our project finally compiles, links and runs! It turned out that my DDL 
port was just fine and we're finally able to make the switch to 1.013 :) 
The Optlink crash has disappeared as well :) Now I'll have to do a few 
tweaks to remove -d and -v1, but now that I know DMD generates valid 
code, it should be a breeze.

Walter.cookies++;


-- 
Tomasz Stachowiak
http://h3.team0xf.com/
h3/h3r3tic on #D freenode
Apr 19 2007
parent reply Pragma <ericanderton yahoo.removeme.com> writes:
Tom S wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 Bug fixes, some of them rather nasty.

 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.013.zip


 
 Thank you thank you thank you thank you :D
 
 Our project finally compiles, links and runs! It turned out that my DDL 
 port was just fine and we're finally able to make the switch to 1.013 :) 
 The Optlink crash has disappeared as well :) Now I'll have to do a few 
 tweaks to remove -d and -v1, but now that I know DMD generates valid 
 code, it should be a breeze.
 
 Walter.cookies++;
 
 


Tom, any way you could email me on that?  I'm starting to re-kindle DDL to get
it finalized for post 1.0 compatibility 
and ELF support.

-- 
- EricAnderton at yahoo
Apr 20 2007
parent Pragma <ericanderton yahoo.removeme.com> writes:
Pragma wrote:

 Tom S wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 Bug fixes, some of them rather nasty.

 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.013.zip


 Thank you thank you thank you thank you :D

 Our project finally compiles, links and runs! It turned out that my 
 DDL port was just fine and we're finally able to make the switch to 
 1.013 :) The Optlink crash has disappeared as well :) Now I'll have to 
 do a few tweaks to remove -d and -v1, but now that I know DMD 
 generates valid code, it should be a breeze.

 Walter.cookies++;


 
 Tom, any way you could email me on that?  I'm starting to re-kindle DDL 
 to get it finalized for post 1.0 compatibility and ELF support.
 


Nevermind.  I just checked my mailbox. :)

-- 
- EricAnderton at yahoo
Apr 20 2007
prev sibling next sibling parent Chris Nicholson-Sauls <ibisbasenji gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Bug fixes, some of them rather nasty.
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
 
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.013.zip


A VERY nice list of fixes, Walter!  :)  Thanks as always.

-- Chris Nicholson-Sauls
Apr 19 2007
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Roberto Mariottini <rmariottini mail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Bug fixes, some of them rather nasty.
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html





 phobos/std/file.d line 1422:
     size_t BUFSIZ = 4069 * 16;



What about having some predefined suffix to represent common two's powers?

int x = 4_k; // == 4 * 1024   == 4_096
int y = 8_M; // == 8 * 1024_k == 8_388_608
int z = 2_G; // == 2 * 1024_M == 2_147_483_648

and obviously:

size_t BUFSIZ = 16 * 4_k;

This could prevent many typos.

Ciao
Apr 20 2007
next sibling parent jcc7 <technocrat7 gmail.com> writes:
== Quote from Roberto Mariottini (rmariottini mail.com)'s article

 Walter Bright wrote:

 Bug fixes, some of them rather nasty.

 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html



  >
  > phobos/std/file.d line 1422:
  >     size_t BUFSIZ = 4069 * 16;
 What about having some predefined suffix to represent common two's powers?
 int x = 4_k; // == 4 * 1024   == 4_096
 int y = 8_M; // == 8 * 1024_k == 8_388_608
 int z = 2_G; // == 2 * 1024_M == 2_147_483_648
 and obviously:
 size_t BUFSIZ = 16 * 4_k;
 This could prevent many typos.
 Ciao


Or how about just use CTFE with a power function? Let's put our new toys to use.

I guess it'll take a little longer to compile, but I think the extra time would
be
worth it to gain code clarity (and I think that clear code is less likely to
have
typos).

jcc7
Apr 20 2007
prev sibling parent renoX <renosky free.fr> writes:
Roberto Mariottini a écrit :

 Walter Bright wrote:

 Bug fixes, some of them rather nasty.

 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html


 

  >
  > phobos/std/file.d line 1422:
  >     size_t BUFSIZ = 4069 * 16;
 
 
 What about having some predefined suffix to represent common two's powers?
 
 int x = 4_k; // == 4 * 1024   == 4_096
 int y = 8_M; // == 8 * 1024_k == 8_388_608
 int z = 2_G; // == 2 * 1024_M == 2_147_483_648


Why would 'k' be 1024 instead of the normal 1000?

As an aside, I like the syntax <number>_<type> as a syntax sugar for 
<type>(<number>), this allow easy to read computation with units:

nb_apple = 10_apple + 20_apple;

regards,
renoX


 
 and obviously:
 
 size_t BUFSIZ = 16 * 4_k;
 
 This could prevent many typos.
 
 Ciao
Apr 20 2007
prev sibling next sibling parent Tom <tom nospam.com> writes:
Thanks!

--
Tom;
(Tomás Rossi)

Walter Bright escribió:

 Bug fixes, some of them rather nasty.
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
 
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.013.zip
Apr 20 2007
prev sibling next sibling parent "Chris Miller" <chris dprogramming.com> writes:
Great release, thanks! Now I no longer need to use older DMD versions.

- Chris
Apr 20 2007
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Christian Kamm" <kamm nospam.de> writes:
I get a

/d/src/phobos/std/format.d(1459): found ':' when expecting ','
/d/src/phobos/std/format.d(1459): found ':' when expecting ','

when trying to compile with the new version. The offending lines are in a  
unittest and seem to try to use associative array literals?
Apr 20 2007
next sibling parent torhu <fake address.dude> writes:
Christian Kamm wrote:

 I get a
 
 /d/src/phobos/std/format.d(1459): found ':' when expecting ','
 /d/src/phobos/std/format.d(1459): found ':' when expecting ','
 
 when trying to compile with the new version. The offending lines are in a  
 unittest and seem to try to use associative array literals?


Are you sure you are using dmd 1.013?  Compiling std.format directly, 
with -unittest works just fine.


This example contains the same line, using AA literals, and compiles for me:
---
import std.stdio;

void main()
{
     char[5][int] aa = ([3:"hello", 4:"betty"]);
     writefln(aa);
}
---

Output:

[3:[h,e,l,l,o],4:[b,e,t,t,y]]
Apr 20 2007
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Christian Kamm wrote:

 I get a
 
 /d/src/phobos/std/format.d(1459): found ':' when expecting ','
 /d/src/phobos/std/format.d(1459): found ':' when expecting ','
 
 when trying to compile with the new version. The offending lines are in 
 a unittest and seem to try to use associative array literals?


It probably means you're trying to compile with a new phobos and an 
older dmd, i.e. your dmd hasn't been updated.
Apr 20 2007
parent reply "Christian Kamm" <kamm nospam.de> writes:
 It probably means you're trying to compile with a new phobos and an  
 older dmd, i.e. your dmd hasn't been updated.


Ah, I'm very sorry: I forgot to upgrade to the new rebuild!

I didn't see anything about AA literals in the changelog though - when  
have they been added?

Cheers,
Christian
Apr 20 2007
parent reply torhu <fake address.dude> writes:
Christian Kamm wrote:

 I didn't see anything about AA literals in the changelog though - when  
 have they been added?


There was some code added in 1.012, some in 1.013 (some of us are sick 
enough to actually diff the source).  They're probably not announced yet 
because there are some basics missing, like allowing strings for keys.
Apr 20 2007
next sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
torhu wrote:

 Christian Kamm wrote:

 I didn't see anything about AA literals in the changelog though - 
 when  have they been added?


 
 There was some code added in 1.012, some in 1.013 (some of us are sick 
 enough to actually diff the source).  They're probably not announced yet 
 because there are some basics missing, like allowing strings for keys.


They're still incomplete.
Apr 20 2007
prev sibling next sibling parent Deewiant <deewiant.doesnotlike.spam gmail.com> writes:
torhu wrote:

 Christian Kamm wrote:

 I didn't see anything about AA literals in the changelog though -
 when  have they been added?


 
 There was some code added in 1.012, some in 1.013 (some of us are sick
 enough to actually diff the source).  They're probably not announced yet
 because there are some basics missing, like allowing strings for keys.


I think it'd good to post about them anyway, though. .stringof was never
announced, yet it's been in the compilers for a while and even made it to the
spec.

-- 
Remove ".doesnotlike.spam" from the mail address.
Apr 21 2007
prev sibling parent reply "Lionello Lunesu" <lionello lunesu.remove.com> writes:
"torhu" <fake address.dude> wrote in message 
news:f0b8qq$2vjm$1 digitalmars.com...

 Christian Kamm wrote:

 I didn't see anything about AA literals in the changelog though - when 
 have they been added?


 There was some code added in 1.012, some in 1.013 (some of us are sick 
 enough to actually diff the source).


Hehe, me too. I add each new DMD to a local SVN, so I can check the changes 
(with the changelog at hand, it's a very good way to learn compiler 
internals!) and it makes it easy to test code with older versions of DMD. 
Highly recommended!

L.
Apr 22 2007
parent =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Lionello Lunesu wrote:


 There was some code added in 1.012, some in 1.013 (some of us are sick 
 enough to actually diff the source).


 
 Hehe, me too. I add each new DMD to a local SVN, so I can check the changes 
 (with the changelog at hand, it's a very good way to learn compiler 
 internals!) and it makes it easy to test code with older versions of DMD. 


It's also a good way to track changes needed for porting over to GDC...
I have a set of diffs going at http://gdcmac.sourceforge.net/diffs/,
that you can view if you don't feel like downloading/diffing yourself.
(divided into changes to front-end source "src" and to spec/docs "html")

Even better would be an official public DMD source code repository ?
Like the one GDC has: http://dgcc.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/dgcc/

--anders
Apr 22 2007
prev sibling parent reply ricky <negerns2000 gmail.com> writes:
I downloaded the 1.013 release but when i execute dmd.exe on a winxp 
commandline shell, it says it's version 1.010. Or am I missing something?

negerns
Apr 22 2007
next sibling parent reply Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
ricky wrote:

 I downloaded the 1.013 release but when i execute dmd.exe on a winxp 
 commandline shell, it says it's version 1.010. Or am I missing something?


It should say 1.013.

You either unzipped 1.013 to the wrong place or you have a different 
1.010 installed somewhere else that comes first on your path.



--bb
Apr 22 2007
parent reply ricky <negerns2000 gmail.com> writes:
Bill Baxter wrote:

 ricky wrote:

 I downloaded the 1.013 release but when i execute dmd.exe on a winxp
 commandline shell, it says it's version 1.010. Or am I missing 




something?

 It should say 1.013.

 You either unzipped 1.013 to the wrong place or you have a different
 1.010 installed somewhere else that comes first on your path.

 --bb


I've downloaded the latest from the ftp site and extracted it on my c:\ 
path and another path. It still says it's version 1.010. I also noticed 
that the dates of the files dmd and dmd.exe are dated 03/26/07 and 
03/25/07 respectively. I also removed my path reference to c:\dmd\bin 
and checked.

I've downloaded releases prior to 1.0 but this is the first time i've 
encountered this. What else could be wrong?

negerns
Apr 22 2007
parent Frits van Bommel <fvbommel REMwOVExCAPSs.nl> writes:
ricky wrote:

 Bill Baxter wrote:
  > ricky wrote:
  >> I downloaded the 1.013 release but when i execute dmd.exe on a winxp
  >> commandline shell, it says it's version 1.010. Or am I missing 
 something?
  >
  > It should say 1.013.
  >
  > You either unzipped 1.013 to the wrong place or you have a different
  > 1.010 installed somewhere else that comes first on your path.
  >
  > --bb
 
 I've downloaded the latest from the ftp site and extracted it on my c:\ 
 path and another path. It still says it's version 1.010. I also noticed 
 that the dates of the files dmd and dmd.exe are dated 03/26/07 and 
 03/25/07 respectively. I also removed my path reference to c:\dmd\bin 
 and checked.
 
 I've downloaded releases prior to 1.0 but this is the first time i've 
 encountered this. What else could be wrong?


You should download the file with the explicit version number 
(dmd.1.013.zip) not dmd.zip. The latter has been put back to 1.010 due 
to problems with 1.011 & 1.012 (IIRC they were fixed in 1.013 though).
Apr 23 2007
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
ricky wrote:

 I downloaded the 1.013 release but when i execute dmd.exe on a winxp 
 commandline shell, it says it's version 1.010. Or am I missing something?


Use this download link:

http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.013.zip
Apr 23 2007
parent reply Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 ricky wrote:

 I downloaded the 1.013 release but when i execute dmd.exe on a winxp 
 commandline shell, it says it's version 1.010. Or am I missing something?


 
 Use this download link:
 
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.013.zip


This is Reason Number 1 why the handy dmd.zip link is a bad idea.

<quote voice="Forrest Gump">
   My momma always said, "dmd.zip was like a box of chocolates. You 
never know what you're gonna get."
</quote>

--bb
Apr 23 2007
parent reply BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:
Reply to Bill,


 Walter Bright wrote:
 

 ricky wrote:
 

 I downloaded the 1.013 release but when i execute dmd.exe on a winxp
 commandline shell, it says it's version 1.010. Or am I missing
 something?
 


 Use this download link:
 
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.013.zip
 


 This is Reason Number 1 why the handy dmd.zip link is a bad idea.
 
 <quote voice="Forrest Gump">
 My momma always said, "dmd.zip was like a box of chocolates. You
 never know what you're gonna get."
 </quote>
 
 --bb
 


I think that dmd.zip == dmd.1.010.zip is not a mistake. the idea is that 
dmd.zip is a "last stable version" link.
Apr 23 2007
next sibling parent Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
BCS wrote:

 Reply to Bill,
 

 Walter Bright wrote:


 ricky wrote:


 I downloaded the 1.013 release but when i execute dmd.exe on a winxp
 commandline shell, it says it's version 1.010. Or am I missing
 something?


 Use this download link:

 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.013.zip


 This is Reason Number 1 why the handy dmd.zip link is a bad idea.

 <quote voice="Forrest Gump">
 My momma always said, "dmd.zip was like a box of chocolates. You
 never know what you're gonna get."
 </quote>

 --bb


 
 I think that dmd.zip == dmd.1.010.zip is not a mistake. the idea is that 
 dmd.zip is a "last stable version" link.


I know it's deliberate.  I'm just saying it's not such a great idea 
because you end up not being sure which version(s) of DMD you have.  You 
have to unpack the zip and run dmd to actually see which you got. 
Hence, a lot like a box of chocolates.

--bb
Apr 23 2007
prev sibling parent reply renoX <renosky free.fr> writes:
BCS a écrit :

 Reply to Bill,
 

 Walter Bright wrote:


 ricky wrote:


 I downloaded the 1.013 release but when i execute dmd.exe on a winxp
 commandline shell, it says it's version 1.010. Or am I missing
 something?


 Use this download link:

 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.013.zip


 This is Reason Number 1 why the handy dmd.zip link is a bad idea.

 <quote voice="Forrest Gump">
 My momma always said, "dmd.zip was like a box of chocolates. You
 never know what you're gonna get."
 </quote>

 --bb


 
 I think that dmd.zip == dmd.1.010.zip is not a mistake. the idea is that 
 dmd.zip is a "last stable version" link.


Then it should be named as such dmd_stable.zip or something like that.

I agree that the dmd.zip is not a good idea.

renoX
Apr 23 2007
parent reply Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
renoX wrote:

 BCS a écrit :

 Reply to Bill,


 Walter Bright wrote:


 ricky wrote:


 I downloaded the 1.013 release but when i execute dmd.exe on a winxp
 commandline shell, it says it's version 1.010. Or am I missing
 something?


 Use this download link:

 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.013.zip


 This is Reason Number 1 why the handy dmd.zip link is a bad idea.

 <quote voice="Forrest Gump">
 My momma always said, "dmd.zip was like a box of chocolates. You
 never know what you're gonna get."
 </quote>

 --bb


 I think that dmd.zip == dmd.1.010.zip is not a mistake. the idea is 
 that dmd.zip is a "last stable version" link.


 
 Then it should be named as such dmd_stable.zip or something like that.
 
 I agree that the dmd.zip is not a good idea.


That's not so useful either.  I've got a dmd_stable.zip sitting on my HD 
or file server that I downloaded a while ago.  I don't remember when. 
So is it the latest stable version or not?  The only way to know is to 
unzip it to a temp location, see what's inside.

Why not just make the link for dmd stable on the changelog directly 
point to dmd.1.010.zip, instead of a symlink to it?  Why deliberately 
throw away useful information?

--bb
Apr 23 2007
parent reply BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:
Reply to Bill,

 
 Why not just make the link for dmd stable on the changelog directly
 point to dmd.1.010.zip, instead of a symlink to it?  Why deliberately
 throw away useful information?
 
 --bb
 


you can automate things that way.

wget http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.zip
Apr 23 2007
parent reply Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
BCS wrote:

 Reply to Bill,

 Why not just make the link for dmd stable on the changelog directly
 point to dmd.1.010.zip, instead of a symlink to it?  Why deliberately
 throw away useful information?

 --bb


 
 you can automate things that way.
 
 wget http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.zip


I'm talking about a link on a web page.  If you're looking at the web 
page then presumably you are a human and not an automaton. :-)

The existence of a symlink is fine and dandy.  Just it shouldn't be main 
hyperlink for stable dmd on the web page.

--bb
Apr 23 2007
parent reply 0ffh <spam frankhirsch.net> writes:
Well, the link text could be something like "stable DMD version"
and still point to a file like, e.g., dmd-1.010.zip....

Rgeards, Frank
Apr 23 2007
next sibling parent Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
0ffh wrote:

 
 Well, the link text could be something like "stable DMD version"
 and still point to a file like, e.g., dmd-1.010.zip....
 
 Rgeards, Frank


Exactly.  The page now reads:

   Download latest stable (1.010) <a href="dmd.zip">D compiler<A> for 
Win32 and x86 linux

It should instead be:

   Download latest stable (1.010) <a href="dmd.1.010.zip">D compiler<A> 
for Win32 and x86 linux

--bb
Apr 23 2007
prev sibling parent =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jari-Matti_M=E4kel=E4?= <jmjmak utu.fi.invalid> writes:
0ffh wrote:

 
 Well, the link text could be something like "stable DMD version"
 and still point to a file like, e.g., dmd-1.010.zip....
 
 Rgeards, Frank
 


A compromise:

dmd-stable.zip -> dmd.1.010.zip
dmd-stable.1.010.zip -> dmd.1.010.zip
dmd-unstable.zip or dmd.zip -> dmd.1.013.zip

The versions with numbers for humans, the other two for the automata.
Then the download/changelog web page could point to the latest file
(with version number) of both "branches". Symlinking doesn't cost anything.
Apr 23 2007