Re: Call to Action: making Phobos @safe
Debugging tip: Templates should almost never be marked @safe or @trusted, as the safety should be inferred. However, to isolate down where the unsafe code actually is, add @safe temporarily to the template declaration. Then, the compiler will tell you which line in the template is unsafe.
Re: Call to Action: making Phobos @safe
On 6/25/2016 3:44 PM, Walter Bright wrote: 4. Add @safe to the unittest A unittest that is deliberately unsafe should be annotated with @system. Meaning that any un-annotated unittest needs corrective action one way or the other.
Re: Call to Action: making Phobos @safe
On Saturday, 25 June 2016 at 22:56:12 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/25/2016 3:44 PM, Walter Bright wrote: 4. Add @safe to the unittest A unittest that is deliberately unsafe should be annotated with @system. Meaning that any un-annotated unittest needs corrective action one way or the other. So why not declare @safe module-wise, and only add @system annotations where needed?
Re: Call to Action: making Phobos @safe
On Sunday, June 26, 2016 06:29:05 Tourist via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Saturday, 25 June 2016 at 22:56:12 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: > > On 6/25/2016 3:44 PM, Walter Bright wrote: > >> 4. Add @safe to the unittest > > > > A unittest that is deliberately unsafe should be annotated with > > @system. Meaning that any un-annotated unittest needs > > corrective action one way or the other. > > So why not declare @safe module-wise, and only add @system > annotations where needed? In general, IMHO, mass applying attributes is a bad idea, because it makes it harder to know which attributes apply where, which is a maintenance problem. However, even worse than that, while there it _is_ possible to apply @safe to the module as a whole and then selectively apply @trusted and @system explicitly, there is no way to turn off all of the @safety attributes so that attribute inference can be used. And other attributes can't be undone at all. So, if you have templates in a module, mass applying attributes is a disaster. - Jonathan M Davis
Re: Call to Action: making Phobos @safe
On Saturday, 25 June 2016 at 22:44:37 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: Andrei identified a key blocker for D adoption is the incomplete implementation of @safe. I'm working on the compiler end. But Phobos has a lot of code that is pointlessly not @safe, making it frustrating to write @safe code that calls Phobos. Some are listed in Bugzilla, most are not. So here's what to do: 1 Could we have a wiki page for this call to action? It would be much easier if there is a list of the modules and their current state like: completed or who is working on this module. In general the call to actions topics disappears too fast in a forum. Maybe it worths to add them to the contributions group in the wiki? Kind regards Andre
Re: Call to Action: making Phobos @safe
It would be awesome if you would create that process model in the wiki and at it to your action list http://wiki.dlang.org/Walter_Andrei_Action_List#Walter_and_Andrei.27s_Action_List So it does not get lost and people can find it.
Re: Call to Action: making Phobos @safe
On Saturday, 25 June 2016 at 22:44:37 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: Andrei identified a key blocker for D adoption is the incomplete implementation of @safe. I'm working on the compiler end. But Phobos has a lot of code that is pointlessly not @safe, making it frustrating to write @safe code that calls Phobos. Some are listed in Bugzilla, most are not. [...] How hard would it be to add a compiler switch, similar to -vgs that shows every non-safe function? This would not just help out with phobos.
Re: Call to Action: making Phobos @safe
On 6/26/2016 6:13 AM, Robert burner Schadek wrote: It would be awesome if you would create that process model in the wiki and at it to your action list http://wiki.dlang.org/Walter_Andrei_Action_List#Walter_and_Andrei.27s_Action_List It's a wiki, feel free to add it.
Re: Call to Action: making Phobos @safe
On Sunday, 26 June 2016 at 22:38:54 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: It's a wiki, feel free to add it. I have to say that reply really makes me angry. I created that list so Andrei and you have an easy to find spot where you can write down tasks so people can work on them. You did not disagree with the list at the time, and didn't disagree so far. I really think it is clear that these are two list that you two are maintaining, how else should anybody know what work is pre-approved and where D is going. I think I'm not asking too much here, if I ask you to decide if you want to maintain that list or if you want to delete it. The current limbo state is just making things worse.
Re: Call to Action: making Phobos @safe
On 6/27/2016 8:14 AM, Robert burner Schadek wrote: On Sunday, 26 June 2016 at 22:38:54 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: It's a wiki, feel free to add it. I have to say that reply really makes me angry. I created that list so Andrei and you have an easy to find spot where you can write down tasks so people can work on them. You did not disagree with the list at the time, and didn't disagree so far. I really think it is clear that these are two list that you two are maintaining, how else should anybody know what work is pre-approved and where D is going. I think I'm not asking too much here, if I ask you to decide if you want to maintain that list or if you want to delete it. The current limbo state is just making things worse. Sorry to have offended you, I worded things badly. Thank you for making the list. It's just that I'm feeling a bit overwhelmed at the moment with trying to get things done and being asked to do more every day, and I'd like to delegate.
Re: Call to Action: making Phobos @safe
On Monday, 27 June 2016 at 19:33:45 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: Sorry to have offended you, I worded things badly. Thank you for making the list. It's just that I'm feeling a bit overwhelmed at the moment with trying to get things done and being asked to do more every day, and I'd like to delegate. Don't sweat it. I just replied in the heat of the moment and thereby violated my personal 24 hour no reply rule. Back to topic, I think this list will save you and Andrei work in the long run. I mean if the list is up to date, you do not have to repeat yourself. Well expect "read the list!" ;-)
Re: Call to Action: making Phobos @safe
On 06/28/2016 05:34 PM, Robert burner Schadek wrote: On Monday, 27 June 2016 at 19:33:45 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: Sorry to have offended you, I worded things badly. Thank you for making the list. It's just that I'm feeling a bit overwhelmed at the moment with trying to get things done and being asked to do more every day, and I'd like to delegate. Don't sweat it. I just replied in the heat of the moment and thereby violated my personal 24 hour no reply rule. Back to topic, I think this list will save you and Andrei work in the long run. I mean if the list is up to date, you do not have to repeat yourself. Well expect "read the list!" ;-) That's a great rule. I should add that the official "things to do" list is the vision document. We don't need a separate list. -- Andrei
Re: Call to Action: making Phobos @safe
On Saturday, 25 June 2016 at 22:56:12 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/25/2016 3:44 PM, Walter Bright wrote: 4. Add @safe to the unittest A unittest that is deliberately unsafe should be annotated with @system. Meaning that any un-annotated unittest needs corrective action one way or the other. What about existing tests that are marked @trusted? Atila
Re: Call to Action: making Phobos @safe
On Wednesday, 29 June 2016 at 17:25:31 UTC, Atila Neves wrote: On Saturday, 25 June 2016 at 22:56:12 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/25/2016 3:44 PM, Walter Bright wrote: 4. Add @safe to the unittest A unittest that is deliberately unsafe should be annotated with @system. Meaning that any un-annotated unittest needs corrective action one way or the other. What about existing tests that are marked @trusted? Atila Maybe I'm missing something, but... What's the purpose of a @trusted unittest? If it's safe, mark it @safe. If it's not, you gain nothing from marking it @trusted, given that it will not be called by @safe code (it will not be called in general). @trusting a top-level function is useless IMHO...
Re: Call to Action: making Phobos @safe
On Wednesday, 29 June 2016 at 17:33:18 UTC, Lodovico Giaretta wrote: On Wednesday, 29 June 2016 at 17:25:31 UTC, Atila Neves wrote: On Saturday, 25 June 2016 at 22:56:12 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/25/2016 3:44 PM, Walter Bright wrote: 4. Add @safe to the unittest A unittest that is deliberately unsafe should be annotated with @system. Meaning that any un-annotated unittest needs corrective action one way or the other. What about existing tests that are marked @trusted? Atila Maybe I'm missing something, but... What's the purpose of a @trusted unittest? If it's safe, mark it @safe. If it's not, you gain nothing from marking it @trusted, given that it will not be called by @safe code (it will not be called in general). @trusting a top-level function is useless IMHO... I don't think there's any point either, I just thought I'd ask before changing them to @system. Atila
Re: Call to Action: making Phobos @safe
On 6/29/2016 10:25 AM, Atila Neves wrote: On Saturday, 25 June 2016 at 22:56:12 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/25/2016 3:44 PM, Walter Bright wrote: 4. Add @safe to the unittest A unittest that is deliberately unsafe should be annotated with @system. Meaning that any un-annotated unittest needs corrective action one way or the other. What about existing tests that are marked @trusted? Marking a unittest as @trusted seems pointless.
Re: Call to Action: making Phobos @safe
On 6/29/16 4:57 PM, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/29/2016 10:25 AM, Atila Neves wrote: On Saturday, 25 June 2016 at 22:56:12 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/25/2016 3:44 PM, Walter Bright wrote: 4. Add @safe to the unittest A unittest that is deliberately unsafe should be annotated with @system. Meaning that any un-annotated unittest needs corrective action one way or the other. What about existing tests that are marked @trusted? Marking a unittest as @trusted seems pointless. I would further say -- if you see a @trusted unit test, whoever wrote it doesn't understand the point of @trusted. Be sure and check the code it is testing too, and file bugs if appropriate. -Steve
Re: Call to Action: making Phobos @safe
On Sunday, 26 June 2016 at 13:13:01 UTC, Robert burner Schadek wrote: It would be awesome if you would create that process model in the wiki and at it to your action list http://wiki.dlang.org/Walter_Andrei_Action_List#Walter_and_Andrei.27s_Action_List So it does not get lost and people can find it. Could you elaborate on list option 9 "create a module that enables code to be run on GPU." Wouldn't the Derelict OpenCL bindings satisfy that need?
Re: Call to Action: making Phobos @safe
On 6/30/2016 4:09 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: I would further say -- if you see a @trusted unit test, whoever wrote it doesn't understand the point of @trusted. Be sure and check the code it is testing too, and file bugs if appropriate. I agree. Using @trusted properly turns out to have some surprising subtleties, but this one is pretty much a no-brainer.
Re: Call to Action: making Phobos @safe
On 6/30/2016 11:54 AM, Bennet Leff wrote: On Sunday, 26 June 2016 at 13:13:01 UTC, Robert burner Schadek wrote: It would be awesome if you would create that process model in the wiki and at it to your action list http://wiki.dlang.org/Walter_Andrei_Action_List#Walter_and_Andrei.27s_Action_List So it does not get lost and people can find it. Could you elaborate on list option 9 "create a module that enables code to be run on GPU." Wouldn't the Derelict OpenCL bindings satisfy that need? I don't know. John Colvin is working on this, he could give a far better appraisal of the state.
Re: Call to Action: making Phobos @safe
On Thursday, 30 June 2016 at 21:31:25 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/30/2016 11:54 AM, Bennet Leff wrote: On Sunday, 26 June 2016 at 13:13:01 UTC, Robert burner Schadek wrote: It would be awesome if you would create that process model in the wiki and at it to your action list http://wiki.dlang.org/Walter_Andrei_Action_List#Walter_and_Andrei.27s_Action_List So it does not get lost and people can find it. Could you elaborate on list option 9 "create a module that enables code to be run on GPU." Wouldn't the Derelict OpenCL bindings satisfy that need? I don't know. John Colvin is working on this, he could give a far better appraisal of the state. Some pointers: https://github.com/John-Colvin/clWrap http://dconf.org/2016/talks/colvin.html
Re: Call to Action: making Phobos @safe
On Thursday, 30 June 2016 at 21:55:33 UTC, Seb wrote: On Thursday, 30 June 2016 at 21:31:25 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/30/2016 11:54 AM, Bennet Leff wrote: On Sunday, 26 June 2016 at 13:13:01 UTC, Robert burner Schadek wrote: [...] Could you elaborate on list option 9 "create a module that enables code to be run on GPU." Wouldn't the Derelict OpenCL bindings satisfy that need? I don't know. John Colvin is working on this, he could give a far better appraisal of the state. Some pointers: https://github.com/John-Colvin/clWrap http://dconf.org/2016/talks/colvin.html Thanks I'll take a further look although it doesn't look like his project is ready for more contributors to add to it yet.
Re: Call to Action: making Phobos @safe
On Saturday, 25 June 2016 at 22:44:37 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: Andrei identified a key blocker for D adoption is the incomplete implementation of @safe. I'm working on the compiler end. But Phobos has a lot of code that is pointlessly not @safe, making it frustrating to write @safe code that calls Phobos. Some are listed in Bugzilla, most are not. So here's what to do: 1. Pick a module, any module, let's say 'std.foo'. 2. Compile it: dmd -unittest -main std/foo and run: foo to verify that the unittests work. 3. Take a look at foo.d and look for a unittest that is not marked @safe. 4. Add @safe to the unittest 5. Do Step 2 on it. 6. If it works, submit a PR with the annotation (well, try to collect a few of these in one module) 7. If it doesn't work, find out where the unsafe code is and fix it, and submit a PR. I've submitted maybe a dozen PRs against Phobos over the last day from doing this. It's only a start. It's possible that someone introduced new unittests that aren't explicitly @safe or @system, but with the exception of std.stream (because of imminent deprecation) all phobos unittests are now explicity tagged. So now, if you want to help make Phobos @safe, the steps are: 1. Pick a module, any module 2. Search for a @system unittest 3. Change @system to @safe 4. Figure out why it doesn't compile that way and either edit code or file bugs Atila
Re: Call to Action: making Phobos @safe
On 7/14/2016 8:57 AM, Atila Neves wrote: It's possible that someone introduced new unittests that aren't explicitly @safe or @system, but with the exception of std.stream (because of imminent deprecation) all phobos unittests are now explicity tagged. So now, if you want to help make Phobos @safe, the steps are: 1. Pick a module, any module 2. Search for a @system unittest 3. Change @system to @safe 4. Figure out why it doesn't compile that way and either edit code or file bugs Awesome, thank you!
