Fix issue 11989 -- deprecate TickDuration, it's no longer used anywhere. #15024
Conversation
|
Thanks for your pull request, @schveiguy! Bugzilla references
Testing this PR locallyIf you don't have a local development environment setup, you can use Digger to test this PR: dub run digger -- build "master + dmd#15024" |
schveiguy
force-pushed
the
deprecatetickduration
branch
from
c51753b
to
b8e9f96
Compare
|
The change in dmd/runnable I think is just testing for some struct, not specifically |
|
Don't merge this until the docs are examined. |
schveiguy
force-pushed
the
deprecatetickduration
branch
from
b8e9f96
to
a2f630f
Compare
|
OK, I think this is good to merge, the docs are as good as I can get them. For some reason deprecated templates do not show as deprecated in ddoc, not sure why. |
Sounds good. IIRC it just needed a symbol from the runtime that isn't built with debug information. |
| assert(TickDuration.min < TickDuration.max); | ||
| assert(TickDuration.min - TickDuration(1) == TickDuration.max); | ||
| assert(TickDuration.max + TickDuration(1) == TickDuration.min); | ||
| assert((zero == TickDuration(0)) == true); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What are these == true additions for?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oof, I missed this comment!
Note all the changes to assert statements are to work around https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23800
That is why.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ping @dkorpel in case the context isn't clear 2 weeks later. Would love to see this merged for the next release.
See prior work dlang/druntime#2886
Note all the changes to
assertstatements are to work around https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23800Once this is removed, all that is going away anyway.
Any ideas on how to do the
_assertThrownDepbetter?Note also that this deprecates the
tooverload, which is one of the banes of my D existence!