Re: dmd 1.046 and 2.031 releases

[Don]

Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:08:23 -0400, Don <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:

In this case, I think bearophile's right: it's just a problem with range propagation of the ?: operator. I think the compiler should be required to do the semantics analysis for single expressions. Not more, not less.

Why? What is the benefit of keeping track of the range of integral variables inside an expression, to eliminate a cast? I don't think it's worth it. As far as I know, the ?: is the only expression where this can happen. You will get cries of inconsistency when the compiler doesn't allow:

ubyte foo(uint x)
{
  if(x < 256)
     return x;
  return 0;
}

-Steve

Already happens. This works:

ubyte foo(uint n)
{
  return true ? 255 : n;
}

And this fails:

ubyte boo(uint n)
{
  if (true) return 255;
  else return n;
}