I think i've found a bug, should / how do i report it.

[Chris Warwick]

"Derek Parnell" <derek at psych.ward> wrote in message 
news:1898vpzduavha.1b2w76ic8zmeg.dlg at 40tude.net...
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 01:43:34 -0000, Chris Warwick wrote:
>
>> Apologys for the previous jibberish.. i've been on honeymoon with D for 
>> the
>> last 4 days and havn't had much sleep lol.. So the problem is still there 
>> i
>> just wrote out the examples wrong.. getting my movd's and movq's all 
>> mixed
>> up.. Anyway copy and past this time so i dont feck up...
>>
>> private ulong MMXZERO = 0x0;
>>     movq       MM0,MMXZERO;
>>
>> compiles fine, as expected.
>>
>> But the addition of 'const'
>>
>> private const ulong MMXZERO = 0x0;
>>     movq       MM0,MMXZERO;
>>
>> causes "bad type/size of operands 'movq'"
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> cw
>
> The MMX instruction 'movq' requires that the source/destination is either
> MMX register or an address of a 64-bit value, except that both can't be
> addresses. I believe that the DMD compile optimizes the 'const' value to 
> be
> a literal zero so you end up with ...
>
>   movq, MM0,0x0
>
> which is not allowed.

Should it really be optimizing typed constants like that, especialy with 
asm?

is it worth me bring this issue up somewhere?

cheers,

cw