[Issue 2569] static arrays in CTFE functions don't compile
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2569 Walter Bright changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||bugzi...@digitalmars.com Resolution||FIXED --- Comment #11 from Walter Bright 2009-09-03 13:24:02 PDT --- Fixed dmd 1.047 and 2.032 -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 2569] static arrays in CTFE functions don't compile
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2569 --- Comment #10 from Don 2009-07-24 04:32:55 PDT --- Note that with this patch in place, bug #1330 becomes a lot more visible. (Fixing that is, I believe, the way to fix the killer bug #1382. Fixing 1330 would probably help to fix bug #2386 as well. But it would involve fixing the compiler in multiple places, which is difficult). -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 2569] static arrays in CTFE functions don't compile
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2569 Max Samukha changed: What|Removed |Added CC||samu...@voliacable.com --- Comment #9 from Max Samukha 2009-07-24 03:14:39 PDT --- Thanks a lot! -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 2569] static arrays in CTFE functions don't compile
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2569 --- Comment #7 from Don 2009-07-24 02:19:04 PDT --- Created an attachment (id=434) --> (http://d.puremagic.com/issues/attachment.cgi?id=434) Patch against DMD1.046. Works for DMD2.031 as well. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 2569] static arrays in CTFE functions don't compile
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2569 Don changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #8 from Don 2009-07-24 02:19:43 PDT --- Here's the patch. Cheers! -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 2569] static arrays in CTFE functions don't compile
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2569 --- Comment #6 from Dimitar Kolev 2009-07-24 01:50:38 PDT --- Thanks great work. You got a beer from me. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 2569] static arrays in CTFE functions don't compile
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2569
--- Comment #5 from Don 2009-07-24 00:01:29 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > The patch I posted was incomplete, so I'm withdrawing it. Done properly, it
> > should support slicing assignment, and arrays initialized to void.
>
> This is a nasty little bugger. Any idea when the patch will be ready?
The patch is now complete for array literals, and also fixes bug#1948 and
bug#3205. It also gives nicer error messages when it can't compile an
assignment in CTFE. There are an unbelievable number of special cases.
The only thing that's missing is that it doesn't deal with assignment from
string literals. Which means that:
char [5] s = "abc"; // fails
char [6] t = ['a', 'b', 'c']; // ok
Here's my test case. All the tests below are working on my patched DMD:
struct S {
int x;
char y;
}
// Functions which should fail CTFE
int badfoo(){
S[2] c;
c[4].x=6; // array bounds error
return 7;
}
int badglobal = 1;
int badfoo2(){
S[] c;
c[7].x=6; // uninitialized error
return 7;
}
int badfoo3(){
S[2] c;
c[badglobal].x=6; // global index error
return 7;
}
int badfoo4(){
static S[2] c;
c[0].x=6; // Cannot access static
return 7;
}
int badfoo5(){
S[] c = void;
c[0].x=6; // c is uninitialized, and not a static array.
return 1;
}
int badfoo6()
{
S[] b = [S(7), S(15), S(56), S(12)];
b[-2..4] = S(17); // exceeding (negative) array bounds
return 1;
}
int badfoo7()
{
S[] b = [S(7), S(15), S(56), S(12), S(67)];
b[1..4] = [S(17), S(4)]; // slice mismatch in dynamic array
return 1;
}
int badfoo8()
{
S[] b;
b[1..3] = [S(17), S(4)]; // slice assign to uninitialized dynamic array
return 1;
}
template Compileable(int z) { bool OK;}
static assert(!is(typeof(Compileable!(badfoo()).OK)));
static assert(!is(typeof(Compileable!(badfoo2()).OK)));
static assert(!is(typeof(Compileable!(badfoo3()).OK)));
static assert(!is(typeof(Compileable!(badfoo4()).OK)));
static assert(!is(typeof(Compileable!(badfoo5()).OK)));
static assert(!is(typeof(Compileable!(badfoo6()).OK)));
static assert(!is(typeof(Compileable!(badfoo7()).OK)));
static assert(!is(typeof(Compileable!(badfoo8()).OK)));
// Functions which should pass CTFE
int goodfoo1()
{
int[8] w;// use static array in CTFE
w[]=7; // full slice assign
w[$-1]=538; // use of $ in index assignment
assert(w[6]==7);
return w[7];
}
static assert(goodfoo1()==538);
int goodfoo2()
{
S[4] w = S(101); // Block-initialize array of structs
w[$-2].x = 917; // use $ in index member assignment
w[$-2].y = 58; // this must not clobber the prev assignment
return w[2].x; // check we got the correct one
}
static assert(goodfoo2()==917);
int goodfoo3()
{
S[4] w = void; // uninitialized array of structs
w[$-2].x = 217; // initialize one member
return w[2].x;
}
static assert(goodfoo3()==217);
int goodfoo4()
{
S[4] b = [S(7), S(15), S(56), S(12)]; // assign from array literal
assert(b[3]==S(12));
return b[2].x-55;
}
static assert(goodfoo4()==1);
int goodfoo5()
{
S[4] b = [S(7), S(15), S(56), S(12)];
b[0..2] = [S(2),S(6)]; // slice assignment from array literal
assert(b[3]==S(12));
assert(b[1]==S(6));
return b[0].x;
}
static assert(goodfoo5()==2);
static assert(goodfoo5()==2); // check for memory corruption
int goodfoo6()
{
S[6] b = void;
b[2..5] = [S(2),S(6), S(17)]; // slice assign to uninitialized var
assert(b[4]==S(17));
return b[3].x;
}
static assert(goodfoo6()==6);
int goodfoo7()
{
S[8] b = void;
b[2..5] = S(217); // slice assign to uninitialized var
assert(b[4]==S(217));
return b[3].x;
}
static assert(goodfoo7()==217);
int goodfoo8()
{
S[] b = [S(7), S(15), S(56), S(12), S(67)];
b[2..4] = S(17); // dynamic array block slice assign
assert(b[3]==S(17));
assert(b[4]==S(67));
return b[0].x;
}
static assert(goodfoo8()==7);
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 2569] static arrays in CTFE functions don't compile
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2569 Dimitar Kolev changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dimitarrosenovko...@hotmail ||.com --- Comment #4 from Dimitar Kolev 2009-07-23 07:41:12 PDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > The patch I posted was incomplete, so I'm withdrawing it. Done properly, it > should support slicing assignment, and arrays initialized to void. This is a nasty little bugger. Any idea when the pAtch will be ready? -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 2569] static arrays in CTFE functions don't compile
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2569 Don changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|patch | --- Comment #3 from Don 2009-07-23 04:56:55 PDT --- The patch I posted was incomplete, so I'm withdrawing it. Done properly, it should support slicing assignment, and arrays initialized to void. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 2569] static arrays in CTFE functions don't compile
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2569
Don changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from Don 2009-07-22 00:36:19 PDT ---
Turned out to be slightly more involved than I thought, there are a few special
cases. I think I've captured them all.
Extended test case:
---
struct Foo {
int m;
}
int foo()
{
short [4] a = [2, 3, 4, 6];
double [27] b = 2.0;
cfloat[2] c;
auto d = [2, 3, 4, 5];
Foo[2] e = [Foo(3), Foo(2)];
// ushort [3] f = [1, 2]; // Uncomment to generate a compile-time error.
d[2..6] = 4;
a[1] = 7;
return a[0]-3;
}
static assert(foo()==-1);
PATCH: interpret.c, line 1464 in BinExp::interpretAssignCommon(),
before checking for the other cases.
// Assignment/initialization of static arrays
if (e1->op == TOKslice && ((SliceExp *)e1)->e1->op==TOKvar) {
SliceExp * sexp = (SliceExp *)e1;
VarExp *ve = (VarExp *)(sexp->e1);
VarDeclaration *v = ve->var->isVarDeclaration();
Type *t = v->type->toBasetype();
if (t->ty == Tsarray){
size_t dim = ((TypeSArray *)t)->dim->toInteger();
if (e2->op == TOKarrayliteral) {
// Static array assignment from literal
ArrayLiteralExp *ae = (ArrayLiteralExp *)e2;
// Ensure length is the same
if (ae->elements->dim != dim) {
error("Array length mismatch");
return e;
}
v->value = ae;
return ae;
}
if (t->nextOf()->ty == e2->type->ty) {
// Static array block assignment
Expressions *elements = new Expressions();
elements->setDim(dim);
for (size_t i = 0; i < dim; i++)
elements->data[i] = e2;
ArrayLiteralExp *ae = new ArrayLiteralExp(0, elements);
ae->type = v->type;
v->value = ae;
return e2;
}
}
}
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 2569] static arrays in CTFE functions don't compile
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2569
--- Comment #1 from Don 2009-07-21 00:18:03 PDT ---
This isn't complicated. The only reason it doesn't work is that
BinExp::interpretAssignCommon in interpret.c doesn't deal with array assignment
AT ALL.
Adding a trivial hack like:
if (e1->op == TOKslice) {
return e2;
}
is enough to make most cases work. I'm working on a proper patch which will
deal with array literals, etc.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
