[Bug 93] Template regex example fails without -release switch
Dave_member at pathlink.com
Tue Apr 11 09:36:40 PDT 2006
Don Clugston wrote:
> d-bugmail at puremagic.com wrote:
>> godaves at yahoo.com changed:
>> What |Removed |Added
>> Severity|major |blocker
>> Version|0.152 |0.153
>> ------- Comment #2 from godaves at yahoo.com 2006-04-11 09:08 -------
>> "Blocker: Blocks development and/or testing work." It's a blocker if
>> you run
>> into that bug and want to use Contract Programming during the course of
>> development and testing. After all, that's a major part of the
>> langauge. Let
>> Walter make the call.
> That category list really should be changed, it is completely
> inappropriate for a compiler. Almost every bug affects development and
> testing work in that sense! (And segfaults of the compiler are not as
> bad as incorrect code generation).
> The fact that a particular example does not compile with -release is not
> a blocker. I can assure you that contract programming works in general.
> Blockers are very rare, one example occurred in an early DMD release
> where almost any program would fail to compile. I doubt that any
> blockers will be discovered that aren't regressions.
> (An example of a blocker would be: "dmd can no longer be used with build").
> To have any chance of this being fixed, you need to have a go at cutting
> down the error. Walter generally ignores bug reports which are longer
> than 20 lines. I suspect he'll completely ignore the severity.
I appreciate your concerns and believe it or not put some thought into
the original report severity, etc. If Walter wants to ignore it that is
his prerogative. If Walter wants to 'downgrade' it that is fine w/ me.
Believe me, I'm not doing this stuff to make Walter's job harder.
I did not try to reduce the error any more than it is because the
summary of the example says:
"What follows is a cut-down version of Eric Anderton's regex compiler.
It is just enough to compile the regular expression above, serving to
illustrate how it is done."
In fact I went to the extra 'trouble' of copying and pasting the code to
put it all in one spot, and tested it both on Windows and Linux.
I agree it probably a recent regression - all the more reason IMHO to
get it taken care of right away because Walter knows what he's changed
recently in that area.
I also agree that perhaps some better bug report descriptions could be
developed, but I hesitate to say that because I don't have the time
right now to come up with suggestions and/or make the changes myself.
More information about the Digitalmars-d-bugs