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

[Don Clugston]

On 21 October 2010 10:48, Brad Roberts <braddr at puremagic.com> wrote:
> 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 can't. Only you and Walter have write access.