DMD front end should define a version containing the front end version

[Iain Buclaw]

On 25 February 2013 09:35, Don <turnyourkidsintocash at nospam.com> wrote:

> On Monday, 25 February 2013 at 01:04:01 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>
>> On Feb 24, 2013 10:16 PM, "Walter Bright" <newshound2 at digitalmars.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 2/24/2013 8:48 AM, SiegeLord wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am quite sick of DMDFE breaking my code every release with bugs
>>>> that are then solved for the next release (that is, if they are
>>>> solved).
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Here's the current regression list:
>>>
>>>
>>>  http://d.puremagic.com/issues/**buglist.cgi?query_format=**
>> advanced&bug_severity=**regression&bug_status=NEW&bug_**
>> status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=**REOPENED<http://d.puremagic.com/issues/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&bug_severity=regression&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED>
>>
>>>
>>>
>> All regressions should have a link to the commit where the issue first
>> recurred.
>>
>
> In my experience, that's nearly always a waste of time. In almost
> all cases, there is nothing wrong with the offending commit, it
> merely triggered an existing latent bug. This is particularly
> true of forward reference bugs.
>
>
I didn't imply that there was anything wrong with the offending commit.  It
does help to give a reference point on where to start looking for tracing
the different code paths down and find a resolution to the regression, as
opposed to "removing this line" or "adding this safegaurd seems to work".


Regards
-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20130225/0f024456/attachment.html>