[dmd-beta] dmd 1.065 and 2.050 beta

[Stephan Dilly]

On 27.10.2010 16:14, Don Clugston wrote:
> On 27 October 2010 15:29, Stephan Dilly<Dilly at funatics.de>  wrote:
>> On 27.10.2010 14:51, Stephan Dilly wrote:
>>>> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd1beta.zip
>>>> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd2beta.zip
>>> 1) the client still says it is version 2.049
>>>
>>> 2) there seems to be a regression with pure opCall methods introduced. The
>>> following code used to build with dmd2049 but now does not:
>>>
>>>
>>> struct Foo
>>> {
>>>     static Foo opCall(in Foo _f) pure
>>>     {
>>>         return Foo;
>>>     }
>>> }
>>>
>>> instead the compiler issues the following error:
>>> "Error: struct bug.Foo no size yet for forward reference"
>>>
>>> the workaround would be to remove the pure but that is no option for my
>>> codebase full of pure opCalls.
>>>
>>>
>>> regards,
>>>     Stephan
>> Ok to be fair, this is the correct code that works in dmd2049 and does not
>> in the beta:
>>
>> struct Foo
>> {
>>     static Foo opCall(in Foo _f) pure
>>     {
>>         return _f;
>>     }
>> }
> That is happening because in mtype.c, line 5013, it's trying to work
> out which form of purity the function is. It can't do this for a
> struct, until it knows if the struct has any pointer members. This is
> a problem if it's a member function.
> I don't know if it really needs to determine purity level so early on.
> _______________________________________________
> dmd-beta mailing list
> dmd-beta at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta
>

I don't know either ;)
Does that mean that static pure opCalls wont be possible from now on ? 
If this is not a regression but a "feature" i want to know as soon as 
possible, so i can start converting the whole freakin codebase.