[dmd-internals] next release

[Steve Schveighoffer]

Yes, it was my bad.

The code I copied (from druntime) looked like this:

(!(ti.next.flags() & 1) ? BlkAttr.NO_SCAN : 0))

I missed that first exclamation point.  Kind of looks crappy anyways, I might 
change that original code to have less negatives.

A unit test would be a good idea -- I'll work on it tomorrow.

-Steve


>
>From: David Simcha <dsimcha at gmail.com>
>To: Discuss the internals of DMD <dmd-internals at puremagic.com>
>Sent: Wed, September 8, 2010 5:25:41 PM
>Subject: Re: [dmd-internals] next release
>
>No, this was in the new version of Appender, though the reason for that new 
>version existing was to fix memory corruption bugs in the old version.  The 
>reasons why this one went undetected for any length of time were because it was 
>only in SVN releases and it only became apparent when using Appender to store 
>data structures that have pointer indirection.  Storing ints or something would 
>just make the GC more conservative because it would think the block had 
>pointers.
>
>
>On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Brad Roberts <braddr at puremagic.com> wrote:
>
>On Wed, 8 Sep 2010, David Simcha wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 5:05 PM, David Simcha <dsimcha at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> > On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Brad Roberts <braddr at puremagic.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> What's the state of the union?  Er.. code base?
>>> >>
>>> >> IMHO, it's about time to consider cutting the next release.  Who has
>>> >> opinions on what's unfinished that they believe needs to be in it?
>>> >>
>>> >> Here's the current changelog for the trunk (probably needs to be 
validated
>>> >> with some of the fixes having to be reverted):
>>> >
>>> > I think I've just found a showstopper bug, but I'm still working on
>>> > producing a reduced test case.  Will keep you guys posted.
>>>
>>
>>> Never mind, there was a legit and severe memory corruption bug w.r.t.
>>> Appender, but it was a silly mistake of having GC block attribute stuff
>>> swapped.  The fix was trivial, so I've checked it in already.
>>>
>>
>>Hrm.. isn't this like the 3rd or 4th memory curruption bug in it?  Any
>>thoughts on what can be done to make it less risky, better tested, etc?
>>
>>Does this bug exist in the current public release or was it introduced
>>during this cycle?  If it's out in the wild, that raises the urgency of
>>getting a release out, imho.
>>
>>Later,
>>Brad
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>dmd-internals mailing list
>>dmd-internals at puremagic.com
>>http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
>>_______________________________________________
>>dmd-internals mailing list
>>dmd-internals at puremagic.com
>>http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
>>
>


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/dmd-internals/attachments/20100908/e1d1e12e/attachment.html>