Please do not reply to this email- if you want to comment on the bug, go to the URL shown below and enter your comments there.
Changed by [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bugzilla.ximian.com/show_bug.cgi?id=75134 --- shadow/75134 2005-08-21 04:44:41.000000000 -0400 +++ shadow/75134.tmp.25496 2005-08-21 04:45:02.000000000 -0400 @@ -0,0 +1,64 @@ +Bug#: 75134 +Product: Mono: Compilers +Version: 1.1 +OS: unknown +OS Details: +Status: REOPENED +Resolution: +Severity: Unknown +Priority: Normal +Component: C# +AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +TargetMilestone: --- +URL: +Cc: +Summary: CS0233 should be reported for sizeof without unsafe context + +Currently mcs does not require unsafe context for "sizeof" operator. + +public class Test +{ + public void Foo () + { + int x = sizeof (int); + } +} + +Actual Results: + +$ mcs sizeof.cs /unsafe +sizeof.cs(5) warning CS0219: The variable 'x' is assigned but its value is +never used +error CS5001: Program sizeof.exe does not have an entry point defined +Compilation failed: 1 error(s), 1 warnings + +Expected Results: + +$ csc sizeof.cs /unsafe /nologo +sizeof.cs(5,11): error CS0233: sizeof can only be used in an unsafe context +(consider using System.Runtime.InteropServices.Marshal.SizeOf) + +How often does this happen? +consistently + +Additional Information: +I haven't checked the C# specification in details so drop it if the spec +does not require unsafe context. + +------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-06-03 03:37 ------- +csc 2.0 does same. It doesn't require unsafe for simple types. + +------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-06-08 14:22 ------- +Same here. + +------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-08-20 11:50 ------- +*** Bug 75861 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** + +------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-08-21 04:44 ------- +Having differences like this one between mcs and csc 1.0 allows for +the build to be broken on Windows (when building using csc). + +The behaviour of gmcs and csc 2.0 should match, but IMO mcs should +match csc 1.0. _______________________________________________ mono-bugs maillist - [email protected] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-bugs
