On Sunday, 22 April 2018 at 05:29:30 UTC, Mike Franklin wrote:
On Sunday, 22 April 2018 at 00:41:34 UTC, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
You're not using the C library version of it, the compiler
does the stack space reservation inline for you. There is no
way around this.
I'm not convinced. I did s
On Sunday, 22 April 2018 at 05:29:30 UTC, Mike Franklin wrote:
I'm not convinced. I did some no-runtime testing and
eventually found the implementation in druntime here
It seems to me that it's an odd thing to have what apparently
looks like a function call an intrinsic part of the language.
On 4/22/18 3:17 AM, Cym13 wrote:
On Sunday, 22 April 2018 at 05:29:30 UTC, Mike Franklin wrote:
On Sunday, 22 April 2018 at 00:41:34 UTC, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
You're not using the C library version of it, the compiler does the
stack space reservation inline for you. There is no way around th
On Sunday, 22 April 2018 at 14:05:53 UTC, kinke wrote:
On Sunday, 22 April 2018 at 02:08:40 UTC, fevasu wrote:
what flags to use so that the intermediate .o files are
discared by ldc and only a.out is written to disk
There's no such functionality, the .o files are required as
linker input. Yo
On Sunday, 22 April 2018 at 02:08:40 UTC, fevasu wrote:
what flags to use so that the intermediate .o files are
discared by ldc and only a.out is written to disk
There's no such functionality, the .o files are required as
linker input. You can place the object files into some temp dir
with `-
On Sunday, 22 April 2018 at 02:08:40 UTC, fevasu wrote:
what flags to use so that the intermediate .o files are
discared by ldc and only a.out is written to disk
You can also use rdmd with ldc, if that makes things easier.
On Saturday, 21 April 2018 at 18:39:02 UTC, Vino wrote:
Hi All,
The function rmdirRecurse does not work in Windows if the
file has the READ ONLY permission, so to over come this issue,
i have written the below function to set the permission on file
and folder using the function "setAttribut
On Saturday, 21 April 2018 at 21:10:29 UTC, Alex wrote:
On Saturday, 21 April 2018 at 19:51:05 UTC, Simen Kjærås wrote:
On Saturday, 21 April 2018 at 11:23:33 UTC, Alex wrote:
So, do you mean, that the constraint belongs to the interface
of a template?
Not necessarily - it depends on what you
On Sunday, 22 April 2018 at 18:25:29 UTC, Simen Kjærås wrote:
No lowering occurs here. A lowering is when the compiler takes
one piece of syntax and replaces it with a different one,
usually one that's more verbose.
In a way, it's kind of like a template being instantiated, in
that you write
On Sunday, 22 April 2018 at 19:27:24 UTC, Alex wrote:
On Sunday, 22 April 2018 at 18:25:29 UTC, Simen Kjærås wrote:
No lowering occurs here. A lowering is when the compiler takes
one piece of syntax and replaces it with a different one,
usually one that's more verbose.
In a way, it's kind of
On Monday, 23 April 2018 at 00:26:23 UTC, Simen Kjærås wrote:
// tuple("Has foo1_A")
pragma(msg, __traits(getAttributes, foo1!"a"));
// tuple("Has foo1_A")
pragma(msg, __traits(getAttributes, foo2!"a"));
// tuple("Has foo1_B")
pragma(msg, __traits(getAttributes, foo1!"b"));
// tuple("Has foo1_B")
11 matches
Mail list logo
