dmd 1.047 and 2.032 releases

[Don]

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Nick B<nick.barbalich at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Don wrote:
>>> Leandro Lucarella wrote:
>>>> Walter Bright, el  3 de septiembre a las 01:16 me escribiste:
>>>> Don't get me wrong, as I stated before, I'm really glad D1 get some new
>>>> features/improvements, I just think the changes should be a little more
>>>> tested before hit D1 (and new aditions to D1 should be more planned, for
>>>> example, leaving them in D2 for a few releases only, so you can get real
>>>> feedback from users before puting them in D1, and having some version
>>>> scheme to indicate when new features are added).
>>> I believe you will find the new CTFE very stable. In implementing the
>>> improvements, many structural problems were fixed. It turns out to be a very
>>> effective way of diagnosing bugs.
>>>
>> Don - can you give an example of how CTFE helps in diagnosing a bug ?
> 
> I think he means that in implementing the improvements to CTFE's
> capabilities, it made other CTFE bugs more obvious and diagnosable.

Not just that. It shows up problems in the semantic pass elsewhere in 
the compiler. I've just used it to discover what's wrong with D2 struct 
constructors. To a limited extent, CTFE is like an alternative back-end.
I was talking about compiler bugs, not user bugs, although it does now 
detect a couple of run-time bugs (CTFE will now tell you which line a 
null pointer dereference occurs on).