Quality of errors in DMD

John Colvin via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Sun Sep 4 02:17:52 PDT 2016


On Sunday, 4 September 2016 at 05:13:49 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 9/3/2016 7:35 PM, John Colvin wrote:
>> In my experience getting a clue as to what is was the compiler 
>> didn't like is
>> very useful. Often the only way I can find a workaround is by 
>> locating the
>> assert in the compiler source and working out what it might 
>> possibly be to do
>> with, then making informed guesses about what semi-equivalent 
>> code I can write
>> that will avoid the bug.
>>
>> If the assert just had a little more info, it might save me a 
>> fair amount of time.
>
> If you're willing to look at the file/line of where the assert 
> tripped, I don't see how a message would save any time at all.

Because the message would give me a clue immediately, without me 
having to go looking in the compiler source (!). Also, I have a 
vague clue of how dmd works, because I'm interested, but someone 
else in my position with a compiler crash in front of them and a 
deadline to hit isn't going to want to have to understand it to 
find out "oh it's the variadic args marked scope that the 
compiler is messing up on".


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list