www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - DMD 1.026 and 2.010 releases

reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
bug fixing

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.026.zip

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.010.zip
Jan 20 2008
next sibling parent reply Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 bug fixing
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.026.zip
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.010.zip


"""
Bugs Fixed
     * Bugzilla 1319: compiler crashes with functions that take const 
ref arguments
"""

Hooray!  At long last!  Maybe it's time to try D2 for real now.  :-)

--bb
Jan 20 2008
parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Bill Baxter wrote:

 """
 Bugs Fixed
     * Bugzilla 1319: compiler crashes with functions that take const ref 
 arguments
 """
 
 Hooray!  At long last!  Maybe it's time to try D2 for real now.  :-)


I was waiting on fixing that until the const stuff settled down.
Jan 20 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent Frank Benoit <keinfarbton googlemail.com> writes:
Walter Bright schrieb:

 bug fixing
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.026.zip
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.010.zip


I really really want to try D2, but even if tango moved to D2...
There is still this problem, that it is not possible to turn the 
full-closure-heap-alloc off. The is, for me, a show stopper. I cannot 
allow heap alloc, and i make massive use of in-place delegates that are 
passed into called functions.

I hope so much for a solution (scope?) in the next release.

Frank
Jan 20 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Pablo Ripolles <in-call gmx.net> writes:
Walter Bright Wrote:


 bug fixing
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.026.zip
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.010.zip


Hello!

Is the pure keyword for functions?  Where is the documentation for it? 
Shouldn't it be listed in the keyword list? (at
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/lex.html)

Thanks for this release!
Jan 20 2008
parent Extrawurst <spam extrawurst.org> writes:
i guess "pure" is not functional in any way yet. its just a reserved 
keyword from now on (like "macro" is for already a looong time)


Pablo Ripolles schrieb:

 Walter Bright Wrote:

   

 bug fixing

 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.026.zip

 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.010.zip
     


 Hello!

 Is the pure keyword for functions?  Where is the documentation for it? 
Shouldn't it be listed in the keyword list? (at
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/lex.html)

 Thanks for this release!
Jan 20 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Extrawurst <spam extrawurst.org> writes:

for this release!

but what happened to scoped interfaces:
[CODE]

interface IFoo {
}

class Foo : IFoo {}

IFoo getaFoo(){
    return new Foo();
}

void main() {
    scope auto a = getaFoo();
}

[/CODE]

this is illegal since 2.010. how can i do such a thing from now on ?


Walter Bright schrieb:

 bug fixing

 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.026.zip

 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.010.zip
Jan 20 2008
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Extrawurst wrote:


 for this release!
 
 but what happened to scoped interfaces:
 [CODE]
 
 interface IFoo {
 }
 
 class Foo : IFoo {}
 
 IFoo getaFoo(){
    return new Foo();
 }
 
 void main() {
    scope auto a = getaFoo();
 }
 
 [/CODE]
 
 this is illegal since 2.010. how can i do such a thing from now on ?


It never worked anyway. The problem is an interface cannot be deleted. 
The solution is two steps:

   scope f = new Foo();
   IFoo i = f;
Jan 20 2008
next sibling parent reply Extrawurst <spam extrawurst.org> writes:
Walter Bright schrieb:

 Extrawurst wrote:


 thanks for this release!

 but what happened to scoped interfaces:
 [CODE]

 interface IFoo {
 }

 class Foo : IFoo {}

 IFoo getaFoo(){
    return new Foo();
 }

 void main() {
    scope auto a = getaFoo();
 }

 [/CODE]

 this is illegal since 2.010. how can i do such a thing from now on ?


 It never worked anyway. The problem is an interface cannot be deleted. 
 The solution is two steps:

   scope f = new Foo();
   IFoo i = f;


The point is that an unchanged code that used to work with dmd2.009 did 
exactly that and worked. By changing to dmd2.010 it is now broken.
Jan 20 2008
next sibling parent reply torhu <no spam.invalid> writes:
Extrawurst wrote:

 The point is that an unchanged code that used to work with dmd2.009 did 
 exactly that and worked. By changing to dmd2.010 it is now broken.


That's to be expected, 2.x compilers are still alpha quality.
Jan 20 2008
parent reply Extrawurst <spam extrawurst.org> writes:
torhu schrieb:

 Extrawurst wrote:

 The point is that an unchanged code that used to work with dmd2.009 
 did exactly that and worked. By changing to dmd2.010 it is now broken.


 That's to be expected, 2.x compilers are still alpha quality.


i am just asking for why this has changed ?!
Jan 20 2008
parent torhu <no spam.invalid> writes:
Extrawurst wrote:

 torhu schrieb:

 Extrawurst wrote:

 The point is that an unchanged code that used to work with dmd2.009 
 did exactly that and worked. By changing to dmd2.010 it is now broken.


 That's to be expected, 2.x compilers are still alpha quality.


 
 i am just asking for why this has changed ?!


Oh sorry, I thought Walter explained that.
Jan 21 2008
prev sibling parent Matti Niemenmaa <see_signature for.real.address> writes:
Extrawurst wrote:

 Walter Bright schrieb:

 Extrawurst wrote:

 but what happened to scoped interfaces:
 [CODE]

 interface IFoo {
 }

 class Foo : IFoo {}

 IFoo getaFoo(){
    return new Foo();
 }

 void main() {
    scope auto a = getaFoo();
 }

 [/CODE]

 this is illegal since 2.010. how can i do such a thing from now on ?


 It never worked anyway. The problem is an interface cannot be deleted. 
 The solution is two steps:

   scope f = new Foo();
   IFoo i = f;


 
 The point is that an unchanged code that used to work with dmd2.009 did 
 exactly that and worked. By changing to dmd2.010 it is now broken.


It didn't always work: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1719

-- 
E-mail address: matti.niemenmaa+news, domain is iki (DOT) fi
Jan 21 2008
prev sibling parent reply Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Extrawurst wrote:


 for this release!

 but what happened to scoped interfaces:
 [CODE]

 interface IFoo {
 }

 class Foo : IFoo {}

 IFoo getaFoo(){
    return new Foo();
 }

 void main() {
    scope auto a = getaFoo();
 }

 [/CODE]

 this is illegal since 2.010. how can i do such a thing from now on ?


 
 It never worked anyway. The problem is an interface cannot be deleted.
 The solution is two steps:
 
   scope f = new Foo();
   IFoo i = f;


Why can't an interface be deleted?  I'd think the compiler could simply
cast the interface to Object and call _d_delclass on it.  Please note
that the suggested workaround isn't always possible, as it's an entirely
legitimate design strategy to have a function return an interface:

    interface I { void fn(); }
    class C : I { void fn() {} }
    class D : I { void fn() {} }

    I getAnI() { /* return new C or D */ }

    scope i = getAnI(); // shouldn't this be legal?

We currently do this in a number of places within Tango, and I'm
delaying upgrading to DMD 1.026 for now because of this.  Worst case, we
can change the code to something like:

    auto i = getAnI();
    scope(exit) delete cast(Object) i;

But this seems like a silly workaround for something that should work
automatically.


Sean
Jan 22 2008
next sibling parent reply Jason House <jason.james.house gmail.com> writes:
Sean Kelly Wrote:

 Why can't an interface be deleted?
 We currently do this in a number of places within Tango, and I'm
 delaying upgrading to DMD 1.026 for now because of this.


This isn't specific to D 1.026.  It's an area of unstable behavior that's been
in dmd for quite a while.  It bit me, and I submitted a bug report.  I
interpret what happened in D 1.026 to be a temporary patch to help prevent
others from hitting this type of issue.  It may help to post the functional
cases from tango to the bug report to help Walter diagnose/fix the problem.
Jan 23 2008
parent reply Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
Jason House wrote:

 Sean Kelly Wrote:

 Why can't an interface be deleted?
 We currently do this in a number of places within Tango, and I'm
 delaying upgrading to DMD 1.026 for now because of this.


 
 This isn't specific to D 1.026.  It's an area of unstable behavior that's been
in dmd for quite a while.  It bit me, and I submitted a bug report.  I
interpret what happened in D 1.026 to be a temporary patch to help prevent
others from hitting this type of issue.  It may help to post the functional
cases from tango to the bug report to help Walter diagnose/fix the problem.


I know.  But it seems strange to me that the fix is to simply disallow
the use of 'scope' with interfaces.  How are interfaces different from
classes in this regard?  Why not just fix the codegen?


Sean
Jan 23 2008
parent Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
Sean Kelly wrote:

 Jason House wrote:

 Sean Kelly Wrote:

 Why can't an interface be deleted?
 We currently do this in a number of places within Tango, and I'm
 delaying upgrading to DMD 1.026 for now because of this.


 This isn't specific to D 1.026.  It's an area of unstable behavior that's been
in dmd for quite a while.  It bit me, and I submitted a bug report.  I
interpret what happened in D 1.026 to be a temporary patch to help prevent
others from hitting this type of issue.  It may help to post the functional
cases from tango to the bug report to help Walter diagnose/fix the problem.


 
 I know.  But it seems strange to me that the fix is to simply disallow
 the use of 'scope' with interfaces.  How are interfaces different from
 classes in this regard?  Why not just fix the codegen?


Oh, as for the functional cases, they're just what I described.  A
function returning an interface that doesn't need to escape the calling
function.  In this instance, using 'scope' seems like a natural solution.


Sean
Jan 23 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent Extrawurst <spam extrawurst.org> writes:
Sean Kelly schrieb:

     interface I { void fn(); }
     class C : I { void fn() {} }
     class D : I { void fn() {} }

     I getAnI() { /* return new C or D */ }

     scope i = getAnI(); // shouldn't this be legal?
   


Oh i beg to get this to work again, the workaround looks ridiculous to me.


~Stephan
Jan 23 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Sean Kelly wrote:

 But this seems like a silly workaround for something that should work
 automatically.


I think you're right.
Jan 24 2008
next sibling parent reply Adil <adil.baig aidezigns.com> writes:
By any chance, are the D conference (at Amazon ) videos going to be 
published online.
Feb 01 2008
parent reply Frank Benoit <keinfarbton googlemail.com> writes:
Adil schrieb:

 By any chance, are the D conference (at Amazon ) videos going to be 
 published online.


lol
Feb 01 2008
parent reply Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
Frank Benoit wrote:

 Adil schrieb:

 By any chance, are the D conference (at Amazon ) videos going to be 
 published online.


 
 lol


I'm putting my money on Duke Nukem Forever.

--bb
Feb 01 2008
parent David Gileadi <foo bar.com> writes:
Bill Baxter wrote:

 Frank Benoit wrote:

 Adil schrieb:

 By any chance, are the D conference (at Amazon ) videos going to be 
 published online.


 lol


 
 I'm putting my money on Duke Nukem Forever.
 
 --bb


http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2008/02/06/duke-nukem-forever-could-hit-in-2008-alongside-xbla-title
Feb 06 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> writes:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Adil wrote:


 By any chance, are the D conference (at Amazon ) videos going to be published
 online.


At this point, I've been teasing the guy who owns getting them to me about 
whether or not the videos will be ready before the next conference.  Sigh.  
Time to go bug him again.  I'll definitly be looking at other options for 
taping next time.

Later,
Brad
Feb 01 2008
prev sibling parent Adil <adil.baig aidezigns.com> writes:
On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 00:05:10 +0400, Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com>  
wrote:


 On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Adil wrote:


 By any chance, are the D conference (at Amazon ) videos going to be  
 published
 online.


 At this point, I've been teasing the guy who owns getting them to me  
 about
 whether or not the videos will be ready before the next conference.   
 Sigh.
 Time to go bug him again.  I'll definitly be looking at other options for
 taping next time.

 Later,
 Brad


Thanks. I feel better now :/

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Feb 01 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Sean Kelly wrote:


 Walter Bright wrote:

 Extrawurst wrote:


 for this release!

 but what happened to scoped interfaces:
 [CODE]

 interface IFoo {
 }

 class Foo : IFoo {}

 IFoo getaFoo(){
    return new Foo();
 }

 void main() {
    scope auto a = getaFoo();
 }

 [/CODE]

 this is illegal since 2.010. how can i do such a thing from now on ?


 
 It never worked anyway. The problem is an interface cannot be deleted.
 The solution is two steps:
 
   scope f = new Foo();
   IFoo i = f;


 
 Why can't an interface be deleted?  I'd think the compiler could simply
 cast the interface to Object and call _d_delclass on it.  Please note
 that the suggested workaround isn't always possible, as it's an entirely
 legitimate design strategy to have a function return an interface:
 
     interface I { void fn(); }
     class C : I { void fn() {} }
     class D : I { void fn() {} }
 
     I getAnI() { /* return new C or D */ }
 
     scope i = getAnI(); // shouldn't this be legal?
 
 We currently do this in a number of places within Tango, and I'm
 delaying upgrading to DMD 1.026 for now because of this.  Worst case, we
 can change the code to something like:


Considering there is code in Tango that does not compile with 1.026 due to
this, code that compiled and worked with previous versions, this is an
obvious regression and breakage in the stable compiler branch.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango
Jan 24 2008
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Sean Kelly wrote:

 But this seems like a silly workaround for something that should work
 automatically.


You're right. I'll make it work.
Jan 25 2008
parent Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Sean Kelly wrote:

 But this seems like a silly workaround for something that should work
 automatically.


 
 You're right. I'll make it work.


Thanks a bunch.


Sean
Jan 25 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Extrawurst <spam extrawurst.org> writes:
Walter Bright schrieb:

 bug fixing

 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.026.zip

 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.010.zip


"
opAssign can no longer be overloaded for class objects.
"

why is that ? that change breaks lots of my code... ;(
Jan 20 2008
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Extrawurst wrote:

 "
 opAssign can no longer be overloaded for class objects.
 "
 
 why is that ? that change breaks lots of my code... ;(


I didn't realize anyone was using it. What are you using it for?
Jan 20 2008
next sibling parent reply Extrawurst <spam extrawurst.org> writes:
Walter Bright schrieb:

 Extrawurst wrote:

 "
 opAssign can no longer be overloaded for class objects.
 "

 why is that ? that change breaks lots of my code... ;(


 I didn't realize anyone was using it. What are you using it for?


The only xml parser implementation i got running under D2 makes heavy 
use of opApply. It is really necessary to disable that ? What for ?
Jan 20 2008
parent reply torhu <no spam.invalid> writes:
Extrawurst wrote:

 Walter Bright schrieb:

 Extrawurst wrote:

 "
 opAssign can no longer be overloaded for class objects.
 "

 why is that ? that change breaks lots of my code... ;(


 I didn't realize anyone was using it. What are you using it for?


 
 The only xml parser implementation i got running under D2 makes heavy 
 use of opApply. It is really necessary to disable that ? What for ?


opApply is still there, it's opAssign that's changed.
Jan 20 2008
parent Extrawurst <spam extrawurst.org> writes:
torhu schrieb:

 Extrawurst wrote:

 Walter Bright schrieb:

 Extrawurst wrote:

 "
 opAssign can no longer be overloaded for class objects.
 "

 why is that ? that change breaks lots of my code... ;(


 I didn't realize anyone was using it. What are you using it for?


 The only xml parser implementation i got running under D2 makes heavy 
 use of opApply. It is really necessary to disable that ? What for ?


 opApply is still there, it's opAssign that's changed.


it was my bad as in the discussion above i was talking about opAssign !
Jan 20 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent Aarti_pl <aarti interia.pl> writes:
Walter Bright pisze:

 Extrawurst wrote:

 "
 opAssign can no longer be overloaded for class objects.
 "

 why is that ? that change breaks lots of my code... ;(


 
 I didn't realize anyone was using it. What are you using it for?


Well, I will answer as it broke (also) my code...

In doost I have something like this:

----
Any opAssign(ValueType)(ValueType value) {
	content=new Holder!(ValueType)(value);
         return this;
}
----

Currently there is no way to initialize template class using "standard" way:

1. No templated constructors
2. No templated opAssign

Now only solution is to use template function e.g. assign

Was it really necessary? Why? I was hoping rather to get templated 
constructors...

BR
Marcin Kuszczak
(aarti_pl)
Jan 21 2008
prev sibling parent Pedr Ferreira <tuga dublin.ie> writes:
Walter Bright Wrote:


 Extrawurst wrote:

 "
 opAssign can no longer be overloaded for class objects.
 "
 
 why is that ? that change breaks lots of my code... ;(


 
 I didn't realize anyone was using it. What are you using it for?


I was using it for my Matrix class to index specific positions on the matrix.
This will make me have to refactor A LOT of my code. I won't be upgrading to
DMD 2.10 (sticking with 2.9) until this change becomes permanent.
Jan 21 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply torhu <no spam.invalid> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 bug fixing
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.026.zip
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.010.zip


If a variable is declared both private and export, I get 'redundant 
protection attribute' with 2.010.  Do private and export really exclude 
each other?  It's sometimes useful, although private seem to be ignored 
when you use export.  I agree that they are conceptually mutually 
exclusive, but private has limited effect in D, and export only changes 
the name mangling, AFAIK.  Just wondering. :)
Jan 20 2008
parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
torhu wrote:

 If a variable is declared both private and export, I get 'redundant 
 protection attribute' with 2.010.  Do private and export really exclude 
 each other?  It's sometimes useful, although private seem to be ignored 
 when you use export.  I agree that they are conceptually mutually 
 exclusive, but private has limited effect in D, and export only changes 
 the name mangling, AFAIK.  Just wondering. :)


Yes, they are meant to be mutually exclusive.
Jan 20 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Don Clugston <dac nospam.com.au> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 bug fixing
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.026.zip
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.010.zip


Thanks! Are there any short-term plans to do anything with 'pure', or are you 
just reserving the keyword (as was done for 'macro')?


has a patch). Just got bitten by it again.
Jan 21 2008
parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Don Clugston wrote:

 Thanks! Are there any short-term plans to do anything with 'pure', or 
 are you just reserving the keyword (as was done for 'macro')?


It's just to reserve it.



 (already has a patch). Just got bitten by it again.


Sure, I'll take care of it.
Jan 21 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Pedr Ferreira <tuga dublin.ie> writes:
Pedr Ferreira Wrote:


 Walter Bright Wrote:
 

 Extrawurst wrote:

 "
 opAssign can no longer be overloaded for class objects.
 "
 
 why is that ? that change breaks lots of my code... ;(


 
 I didn't realize anyone was using it. What are you using it for?


 
 I was using it for my Matrix class to index specific positions on the matrix.
This will make me have to refactor A LOT of my code. I won't be upgrading to
DMD 2.10 (sticking with 2.9) until this change becomes permanent.


Oh, nvm, opAssign isn't that bad, only minor modifications are necessary. I
misread ad "ofIndexAssign", sorry about that.

Anyway, the page http://www.digitalmars.com/d/operatoroverloading.html still
has the opAssign.
Jan 21 2008
parent Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
Pedr Ferreira wrote:

 Pedr Ferreira Wrote:
 

 Walter Bright Wrote:


 Extrawurst wrote:

 "
 opAssign can no longer be overloaded for class objects.
 "

 why is that ? that change breaks lots of my code... ;(


 I didn't realize anyone was using it. What are you using it for?


 I was using it for my Matrix class to index specific positions on the matrix.
This will make me have to refactor A LOT of my code. I won't be upgrading to
DMD 2.10 (sticking with 2.9) until this change becomes permanent.


 
 Oh, nvm, opAssign isn't that bad, only minor modifications are necessary. I
misread ad "ofIndexAssign", sorry about that.
 
 Anyway, the page http://www.digitalmars.com/d/operatoroverloading.html still
has the opAssign.


I think it's staying for structs.  But the page should mention that.

--bb
Jan 21 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent Max Samukha <maxsamukha gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:


 bug fixing
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.026.zip
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.010.zip


Thanks for the bug fixes!
Jan 21 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply David L. Davis <SpottedTiger yahoo.com> writes:
Walter Bright Wrote:


 bug fixing
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.026.zip
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.010.zip


Walter, I noticed that size of D v2.009's zip was 334Kb larger than the current
D v2.010's zip...I'm curious as to what got trimmed? 

David
Jan 22 2008
parent reply Neal Alexander <wqeqweuqy hotmail.com> writes:
David L. Davis wrote:

 Walter Bright Wrote:
 

 bug fixing

 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.026.zip

 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.010.zip


 
 Walter, I noticed that size of D v2.009's zip was 334Kb larger than the
current D v2.010's zip...I'm curious as to what got trimmed? 
 
 David


IIRC the size of binaries dmd produces went up for no apparent reason 
between 2.07 or 2.08 -> 2.09 (on win32 at least).
Jan 22 2008
next sibling parent David L. Davis <SpottedTiger yahoo.com> writes:
Neal Alexander Wrote:


 David L. Davis wrote:

 Walter Bright Wrote:
 

 bug fixing

 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.026.zip

 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.010.zip


 
 Walter, I noticed that size of D v2.009's zip was 334Kb larger than the
current D v2.010's zip...I'm curious as to what got trimmed? 
 
 David


 
 IIRC the size of binaries dmd produces went up for no apparent reason 
 between 2.07 or 2.08 -> 2.09 (on win32 at least).


Neal,
  
    Yep, after downloading the D v2.008 zipfile and looking at the sizes again
I can see what you mean. Thanks for the reply.

David
Jan 22 2008
prev sibling parent reply Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
Neal Alexander wrote:

 David L. Davis wrote:

 Walter Bright Wrote:


 bug fixing

 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.026.zip

 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.010.zip


 Walter, I noticed that size of D v2.009's zip was 334Kb larger than
 the current D v2.010's zip...I'm curious as to what got trimmed?
 David


 
 IIRC the size of binaries dmd produces went up for no apparent reason
 between 2.07 or 2.08 -> 2.09 (on win32 at least).


Historically, this has been from additions to the TypeInfo objects.  Was
there an increase in D 1.0 executable sizes as well?


Sean
Jan 22 2008
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Sean Kelly wrote:

 Historically, this has been from additions to the TypeInfo objects.  Was
 there an increase in D 1.0 executable sizes as well?


It helps to use the right switches when compiling <g>.
Jan 22 2008
parent Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Sean Kelly wrote:

 Historically, this has been from additions to the TypeInfo objects.  Was
 there an increase in D 1.0 executable sizes as well?


 
 It helps to use the right switches when compiling <g>.


Ah, there is that :-)
Jan 22 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent Clay Smith <clayasaurus gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 bug fixing
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.026.zip
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.010.zip


Keep up the good work, the bug fixes are much appreciated :)
Jan 24 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply torhu <no spam.invalid> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 bug fixing
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.026.zip


The date for when 1.025 was released is wrong in the changelog now:

"Version D 1.025   Jan 21, 2008"

IIRC, it was released Jan 1.
Jan 24 2008
parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
torhu wrote:

 IIRC, it was released Jan 1.


Thanks, I'll fix (broke because I was reformatting the stuff).
Jan 24 2008
prev sibling parent reply Robert Jones <robertjones21 hotpop.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:


 bug fixing
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.026.zip
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.010.zip


Walter,

What version of libstdc++ are you using now? The last time I tried using dmd
on fedora core 5 it wouldn't work because dmd required libstdc++6.so and I
only had libstdc++7.so and later.
Jan 25 2008
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Robert Jones wrote:

 What version of libstdc++ are you using now? The last time I tried using dmd
 on fedora core 5 it wouldn't work because dmd required libstdc++6.so and I
 only had libstdc++7.so and later.


I've been using 5 because many complained they couldn't get 6 for their 
systems.
Jan 26 2008
parent reply Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Robert Jones wrote:

 What version of libstdc++ are you using now? The last time I tried
 using dmd
 on fedora core 5 it wouldn't work because dmd required libstdc++6.so
 and I
 only had libstdc++7.so and later.


 
 I've been using 5 because many complained they couldn't get 6 for their
 systems.


It's generally pretty easy to get older versions of a library, but not
always easy to get newer ones.  The glibc change not too long ago ended
up inspiring me to upgrade my Ubuntu install from 5.10 because I didn't
have the proper version of the lib and the upgrade features for the OS
had broken.


Sean
Jan 27 2008
parent Robert Jones <robertjones21 hotpop.com> writes:
Sean Kelly wrote:


 Walter Bright wrote:

 Robert Jones wrote:

 What version of libstdc++ are you using now? The last time I tried
 using dmd
 on fedora core 5 it wouldn't work because dmd required libstdc++6.so
 and I
 only had libstdc++7.so and later.


 
 I've been using 5 because many complained they couldn't get 6 for their
 systems.


 
 It's generally pretty easy to get older versions of a library, but not
 always easy to get newer ones.  The glibc change not too long ago ended
 up inspiring me to upgrade my Ubuntu install from 5.10 because I didn't
 have the proper version of the lib and the upgrade features for the OS
 had broken.
 
 
 Sean


Well, I'm just a regular user on my dad's machine. I can only install
to /home/bob/bin so unless someone can point me to where I can get
libstdc++5.so and maybe libstdc++6.so, I'm kinda screwed.
Jan 27 2008