[dmd-internals] runnable/interpret.d + -O == failure

Brad Roberts braddr at puremagic.com
Thu Oct 21 01:48:05 PDT 2010

On 10/21/2010 1:34 AM, Don Clugston wrote:
> On 21 October 2010 10:32, Brad Roberts <braddr at puremagic.com> wrote:
>> On 10/21/2010 1:18 AM, Don Clugston wrote:
>>> The compiler has just got better at detecting errors!
>>> There's something wrong with the tests in that file (there are
>>> multiple instances of Compileable, and they're all wrong!). Here's a
>>> fixed one.
>> Walter changed it to run with -O with his recent change, it used to be excluded
>> (no idea why, it started that way with the oldest version of the dmd test suite
>> I have a copy of).  I tromped back through dmd svn history quite a ways and it
>> doesn't look like -O and that test have ever gotten along (I stopped at around
>> r500 as old enough to not care if it's a regression or not).
>> Did you intend this new version of interpret.d to be checked in or just as a
>> demo of what's wrong with it.  I'm mostly asking about the manual inlining of
>> badfoo2 into the static assert.
> To be checked in. Manual inlining prevents it from ever getting compiled.

Ok.. looks odd with just 1 of the 8 failure tests inlined like that.

Feel free to submit it. :)

I'm going to leave the linux auto-tester running the full dmd test suite, so
it'll continue to break until it's fixed fully.  I need to hit the sack (it's
2am here) so can't look at the rest of the brokenness tonight.


More information about the dmd-internals mailing list