Re: Three legitimate bugs? (D1.061)
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Unlike some languages, D1 const does not imply static. Which means you
are trying to define an S as containing an S, which would then contain
another S and so on. This should work:
It's implying static in this context according to my testing. Try this
at home:
--
import std.stdio;
const S S1 = S();
struct S {
float value;
static S opCall() {
S s;
s.value = 42;
return s;
}
const S S2 = S();
}
pragma(msg, S.sizeof);
pragma(msg, S1.value);
pragma(msg, S.S2.value);
--
Re: Three legitimate bugs? (D1.061)
strtr wrote:
Should I report these bugs?
The general answer to this question is: Yes, as long as
* you're sure it's a bug
* you can reproduce it in a current version of DMD or GDC
* it isn't already reported
The bug reporting system is here:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/
(and how should I call this first one?)
--
main.d(4): Error: struct main.S no size yet for forward reference
main.d(4): Error: struct main.S no size yet for forward reference
main.d(11): Error: cannot evaluate opCall() at compile time
Puzzling. It appears that line 2 is somehow helping the compiler to get
it right - and without it, the compiler gets thrown while trying to make
sense of the S() you're setting S2 to. But the line numbers you're
getting are puzzling in any case.
In any case, there's certainly a bug here.
--
run main.exe
Error: ArrayBoundsError main.d(8)
should be t_def.d(8)
That's certainly a bug that needs to be reported if it isn't reported
already.
module main;
const S S1 = S();
struct S
{
static S func( S s_ )
out(result){ assert(false,random); }
body{ return s_; }
const S S2 = func(S());
}
void main(){}
--
main.d(8): Error: __error <---# should be assert failure #
The error should be "undefined identifier random".
main.d(11): Error: cannot evaluate func((S())) at compile time
Indeed, this is probably a bug along the same lines as the compiler's
tendency to treat invalid expressions as being subsequently of type int.
Stewart.
Re: Three legitimate bugs? (D1.061)
Don: > D'oh, should read the title. This was a D1 question. Yes it's > intentional, and yes it's confusing. Sorry, I have added more confusion. I have added this, but I have used DMD2: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4203 Bye, bearophile
Re: Three legitimate bugs? (D1.061)
Don wrote:
bearophile wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer:
No, I was simply wrong :) I think it's by design. Which means the
original bug report is valid.
The original bug report is valid, but I don't understand that code
still. Is the const implying a static only in some situations?
Why is this OK for the compiler:
struct Foo {
const Foo f = Foo();
}
static assert(Foo.sizeof == 1);
void main() {}
While this is not OK for the compiler?
struct Foo {
const Foo f;
}
static assert(Foo.sizeof == 1);
void main() {}
Bye,
bearophile
In D1, the two are totally different. The second one is the only
situation in D1 where 'const' doesn't mean compile-time constant.
I guess the same behaviour has been applied in D2, but I'm not sure if
that's intentional or not.
D'oh, should read the title. This was a D1 question. Yes it's
intentional, and yes it's confusing.
Re: Three legitimate bugs? (D1.061)
bearophile wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer:
No, I was simply wrong :) I think it's by design. Which means the
original bug report is valid.
The original bug report is valid, but I don't understand that code still. Is
the const implying a static only in some situations?
Why is this OK for the compiler:
struct Foo {
const Foo f = Foo();
}
static assert(Foo.sizeof == 1);
void main() {}
While this is not OK for the compiler?
struct Foo {
const Foo f;
}
static assert(Foo.sizeof == 1);
void main() {}
Bye,
bearophile
In D1, the two are totally different. The second one is the only
situation in D1 where 'const' doesn't mean compile-time constant.
I guess the same behaviour has been applied in D2, but I'm not sure if
that's intentional or not.
Re: Three legitimate bugs? (D1.061)
Steven Schveighoffer:
> No, I was simply wrong :) I think it's by design. Which means the
> original bug report is valid.
The original bug report is valid, but I don't understand that code still. Is
the const implying a static only in some situations?
Why is this OK for the compiler:
struct Foo {
const Foo f = Foo();
}
static assert(Foo.sizeof == 1);
void main() {}
While this is not OK for the compiler?
struct Foo {
const Foo f;
}
static assert(Foo.sizeof == 1);
void main() {}
Bye,
bearophile
Re: Three legitimate bugs? (D1.061)
On Mon, 17 May 2010 15:31:23 -0400, bearophile
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer:
Unlike some languages, D1 const does not imply static. Which means you
are trying to define an S as containing an S, which would then contain
another S and so on.
It seems the const implies static, in structs... I don't know if this is
by design, or it's a compiler bug, or something. I don't understand.
This doesn't asserts:
struct Foo {
float value;
const Foo f = Foo();
}
void main() {
assert(Foo.sizeof == 4);
}
This looks like a compiler bug that I can add it to bugzilla.
No, I was simply wrong :) I think it's by design. Which means the
original bug report is valid.
-Steve
Re: Three legitimate bugs? (D1.061)
Steven Schveighoffer:
> Unlike some languages, D1 const does not imply static. Which means you
> are trying to define an S as containing an S, which would then contain
> another S and so on.
It seems the const implies static, in structs... I don't know if this is by
design, or it's a compiler bug, or something. I don't understand. This doesn't
asserts:
struct Foo {
float value;
const Foo f = Foo();
}
void main() {
assert(Foo.sizeof == 4);
}
This looks like a compiler bug that I can add it to bugzilla.
Bye,
bearophile
Re: Three legitimate bugs? (D1.061)
On Mon, 17 May 2010 10:28:47 -0400, strtr wrote:
== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schvei...@yahoo.com)'s article
On Sat, 15 May 2010 16:15:23 -0400, strtr wrote:
> Should I report these bugs?
> (and how should I call this first one?)
>
> module main;
> //const S S1 = S(); // uncomment this to compile
> struct S
> {
> float value;
> static S opCall()
> {
> S s;
> return s;
> }
> const S S2 = S();
> }
> void main(){}
> --
> main.d(4): Error: struct main.S no size yet for forward reference
> main.d(4): Error: struct main.S no size yet for forward reference
> main.d(11): Error: cannot evaluate opCall() at compile time
>
Unlike some languages, D1 const does not imply static. Which means you
are trying to define an S as containing an S, which would then contain
another S and so on. This should work:
struct S
{
float value;
static S opCall()
{
S s;
return s;
}
static const S S2 = S();
}
-Steve
But why would uncommenting S1 result in compilable code?
Hm... that's a good question. I guess my belief is wrong. And that would
imply that my code doesn't compile...
-Steve
Re: Three legitimate bugs? (D1.061)
== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schvei...@yahoo.com)'s article
> On Sat, 15 May 2010 16:15:23 -0400, strtr wrote:
> > Should I report these bugs?
> > (and how should I call this first one?)
> >
> > module main;
> > //const S S1 = S(); // uncomment this to compile
> > struct S
> > {
> > float value;
> > static S opCall()
> > {
> > S s;
> > return s;
> > }
> > const S S2 = S();
> > }
> > void main(){}
> > --
> > main.d(4): Error: struct main.S no size yet for forward reference
> > main.d(4): Error: struct main.S no size yet for forward reference
> > main.d(11): Error: cannot evaluate opCall() at compile time
> >
> Unlike some languages, D1 const does not imply static. Which means you
> are trying to define an S as containing an S, which would then contain
> another S and so on. This should work:
> struct S
> {
> float value;
> static S opCall()
> {
> S s;
> return s;
> }
> static const S S2 = S();
> }
> -Steve
But why would uncommenting S1 result in compilable code?
Re: Three legitimate bugs? (D1.061)
On Sat, 15 May 2010 16:15:23 -0400, strtr wrote:
Should I report these bugs?
(and how should I call this first one?)
module main;
//const S S1 = S(); // uncomment this to compile
struct S
{
float value;
static S opCall()
{
S s;
return s;
}
const S S2 = S();
}
void main(){}
--
main.d(4): Error: struct main.S no size yet for forward reference
main.d(4): Error: struct main.S no size yet for forward reference
main.d(11): Error: cannot evaluate opCall() at compile time
Unlike some languages, D1 const does not imply static. Which means you
are trying to define an S as containing an S, which would then contain
another S and so on. This should work:
struct S
{
float value;
static S opCall()
{
S s;
return s;
}
static const S S2 = S();
}
-Steve
Re: Three legitimate bugs? (D1.061)
== Quote from bearophile (bearophileh...@lycos.com)'s article > strtr Wrote: > > Should I report these bugs? > Yes, add them to bugzilla. The third one is especially cute. Was kind of expecting you to correct me or point me to the corresponding bugzillas ;D > > (and how should I call this first one?) > Something simple like: > Forward reference error with struct opCall and const > Let's see how much time it takes to reach 5000 bugs :-) > Bye, > bearophile As it is really time consuming to construct test cases out of large projects, lets hope a while ;) Although I do like the search..
Re: Three legitimate bugs? (D1.061)
strtr Wrote: > Should I report these bugs? Yes, add them to bugzilla. The third one is especially cute. > (and how should I call this first one?) Something simple like: Forward reference error with struct opCall and const Let's see how much time it takes to reach 5000 bugs :-) Bye, bearophile
Three legitimate bugs? (D1.061)
Should I report these bugs?
(and how should I call this first one?)
module main;
//const S S1 = S(); // uncomment this to compile
struct S
{
float value;
static S opCall()
{
S s;
return s;
}
const S S2 = S();
}
void main(){}
--
main.d(4): Error: struct main.S no size yet for forward reference
main.d(4): Error: struct main.S no size yet for forward reference
main.d(11): Error: cannot evaluate opCall() at compile time
module main;
import t_def;
class C{ mixin T!(); }
void main(){
C c = new C();
c.func();
}
--
module t_def;
template T()
{
int[] arr;
public void func()
{
arr[1] = 42;
}
}
--
run main.exe
Error: ArrayBoundsError main.d(8)
should be t_def.d(8)
module main;
const S S1 = S();
struct S
{
static S func( S s_ )
out(result){ assert(false,random); }
body{ return s_; }
const S S2 = func(S());
}
void main(){}
--
main.d(8): Error: __error <---# should be assert failure #
main.d(11): Error: cannot evaluate func((S())) at compile time
