[dmd-beta] dmd 1.069 and 2.054 beta

[Stephan Dilly]

I found another problem, that i think that was not present in the last 
release:

string mutateTheImmutable(immutable string _s)
{
     char[] s = _s.dup;

     foreach(ref c; s)
         c = 'x';

     return s.idup;
}

string doharm(immutable string _name)
{
     return mutateTheImmutable(_name[2..$].idup);
}

enum literal = "CL_INVALID_CONTEXT";
pragma(msg, "literal:" ~ literal);

enum foo = doharm(literal);

pragma(msg, "mutated:" ~ foo);
pragma(msg, "literal:" ~ literal);

void main(){}


dmd messages:
literal:CL_INVALID_CONTEXT
mutated:xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
literal:CLxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Is this behaviour by design ??



On 08.07.2011 00:50, David Simcha wrote:
> I Isolated the other regression that I mentioned this morning.  It's 
> one that I don't think anyone else is likely to run into and I 
> wouldn't be at all annoyed if we just released with it.
>
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6267
>
> On 7/5/2011 10:31 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>>
>> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd1beta.zip
>> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd2beta.zip
>> _______________________________________________
>> dmd-beta mailing list
>> dmd-beta at puremagic.com
>> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmd-beta mailing list
> dmd-beta at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta
>