Moving towards D2 2.061 (and D1 1.076)

[Denis Shelomovskij]

10.12.2012 15:11, Walter Bright пишет:
> On 12/10/2012 12:56 AM, Denis Shelomovskij wrote:
>> A long time ago I wrote one (not open source) application in D1+Tango.
>> I'm still supporting it. The last D1 compiler I can use is 1.066 as
>> then a fatal
>> regression was introduced and templates became unusable because of
>> ICE. Am I the
>> only one who use templates in D1? If not, what is the purpose for all
>> this
>> needless D1 releases as compiler doesn't work for almost any project with
>> templates?
>
> What is the bugzilla issue number for that? In bugzilla, you can tag
> issues as being "regressions", and I don't recall seeing one like you
> describe. Here is the current list of regressions:
>
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&bug_severity=regression&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED
>
>
>
>> And let me beat utterly:
>>
>> Now imagine: a person updated a compiler and get ICE. On *huge*
>> codebase. What
>> will he do? He will use old working one. But I decided to go further,
>> found a
>> DustMite and decided to find the source of the error. Do you know that
>> current
>> D2 compiler ICE-s with compiling DustMite? Imagine, what will feel a
>> person when
>> bug finding tool ICE-s a compiler? He will probably consider "D is a
>> peace of
>> unstable shit" and go away.
>>
>> And he will be right as it is unforgivable for us to talk about any
>> "stability"
>> of D. "D is for crazy nerd who are ready to find, report and
>> workaround infinite
>> compiler bugs on any complicated code with templates", that's all we
>> can tell.
>>
>> But I finally managed to compile DustMite without ICE, found the
>> regression and
>> reported. Still unfixed...
>
> What is the bugzilla issue number?
>

This was the result of DustMite-ing my sources:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6296

Currently the bug state is a bit confusing. It is a regression (but I 
didn't mark it that way, only write in description, sorry) but is 
resolved as a duplicate of a non-regression unfixed bug 4269. It was a 
small war between "regression" and "normal" state of 4269 and now it is 
marked as "normal".

-- 
Денис В. Шеломовский
Denis V. Shelomovskij