extern(C++, ns)

Manu via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Mon Jan 4 07:02:05 PST 2016


On 4 January 2016 at 02:10, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
> On 1/3/16 12:19 AM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>
>> I know I'll just get complaints from people to submit bugs; I have
>> submit lots, and in many cases, I've tried to, but they're almost
>> impossible to produce in isolation, only when a project gets 'real', ie,
>> big enough that it's realistic in scope does it all start to break down.
>> It's really hard to reduce a bug that I don't understand, somewhere
>> among a program with 30-ish interconnected modules.
>
>
> What I do is make a fresh copy of the project tree, and then start pruning
> (heh) that down. Prune, rebuild, prune, rebuild etc. Whatever makes the
> error go away put back in (editor "undo" is handy). It takes some getting
> used to but it's an effective tool for reducing a bug to its essentials. I
> suspect in your case e.g. no function definition is even necessary - only
> declarations. -- Andrei

Yeah, I've used this process before. Last time I reported a raft of
LDC bugs I spent a few days doing this... but it's very laborious, and
I don't have time to do it. I'm doing this work on borrowed time as it
is.
I need to feel productive and like I'm making progress, otherwise it
fails to compete for timeshare with other high priority goals >_<
The thing is, it's wasted effort anyway, because it's almost all a
symptom of a bad design that should be changed for design reasons
alone, regardless of bugs.

Walter has already submit a patch for what I think is the key
non-design-related bug causing me problems. I expect that'll lead to a
lot less random errors and misdiagnoses when hacking at the main task
of working-around the problems caused by broken design. I wonder if
there's chance of getting the fix into 2.070? That would be really
rocking.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list