[Issue 4077] Bugs caused by bitwise operator precedence
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4077 --- Comment #13 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2010-07-24 15:30:48 PDT --- Thank you very much to Stewart Gordon, Don and Walter. One more down. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4077] Bugs caused by bitwise operator precedence
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4077 Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||llu...@gmail.com --- Comment #14 from Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com 2010-07-24 16:25:03 PDT --- Don't forget to update the specs! :) -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4077] Bugs caused by bitwise operator precedence
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4077 --- Comment #10 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2010-06-21 14:48:40 PDT --- Created an attachment (id=669) Patch against svn 552, D2 This patch implements Stewart Gordon's proposal. Quite simple, since it is just the parser. I'm not sure if there's a better way of doing it, but it still only affects a small number of lines. Most of this patch involves creating nice error messages when ambiguities occur. I have NOT dealt with the code in the 'global.params.Dversion == 1' block inside parseAndExp(). I don't know if it's current; in any case it's completely different to the code in D1. Possibly this needs to change as well, for code inside version(D1) blocks. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4077] Bugs caused by bitwise operator precedence
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4077 Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch Version|future |D2 --- Comment #11 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2010-06-21 14:49:58 PDT --- Note that with this patch in place, I found 6 bugs in Phobos and 1 in druntime. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4077] Bugs caused by bitwise operator precedence
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4077 Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clugd...@yahoo.com.au --- Comment #9 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2010-05-07 02:01:48 PDT --- (In reply to comment #5) The precedence of bitwise operators is indeed counter-intuitive. Presumably there's a reason C defined them this way. Yes, there is -- backwards compatibility with the B language!!! Denis Ritchie says (http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/chist.html): At the suggestion of Alan Snyder, I introduced the and || operators to make the mechanism [[short circuit evaluation]] more explicit. Their tardy introduction explains an infelicity of C's precedence rules. In B one writes if (a==b c) ... to check whether a equals b and c is non-zero; in such a conditional expression it is better that have lower precedence than ==. In converting from B to C, one wants to replace by in such a statement; to make the conversion less painful, we decided to keep the precedence of the operator the same relative to ==, and merely split the precedence of slightly from . Today, it seems that it would have been preferable to move the relative precedences of and ==, and thereby simplify a common C idiom: to test a masked value against another value, one must write if ((amask) == b) ... where the inner parentheses are required but easily forgotten. --- So C did it for an unbelievably silly reason (there was hardly any B code in existence). Note that Ritchie says it is easily forgotten. We should definitely fix this ridiculous precedence. (IMHO it was very sloppy that ANSI C didn't make (ab == c) an error). -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4077] Bugs caused by bitwise operator precedence
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4077 --- Comment #8 from Sobirari Muhomori dfj1es...@sneakemail.com 2010-04-14 10:28:27 PDT --- An academic example of use is to NOT short-circuit evaluation of operands. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4077] Bugs caused by bitwise operator precedence
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4077 Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||schvei...@yahoo.com --- Comment #6 from Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com 2010-04-12 06:09:47 PDT --- (In reply to comment #1) Care to quantify 'frequent'? Just because something can cause a bug doesn't make it a disaster. I can't recall ever making a bit wise precedence error myself. Of course, that too isn't proof of anything. I run into this all the time. It makes me absolutely paranoid about bitops to where I sometimes write things like: if((a | b)) or a = (b | c); Before I realize the extra parens don't do much :) If you write routines that parse protocols or use bitfield flags, you will run into this bug. I always wondered why bitwise operators were lower in precedence than comparison, but you just learn to accept it (and judiciously use parentheses around such things). If D could make strides to help solve this problem, I think it would be great. Probably not earth shattering, but just another feather in the cap. When someone writes something like: if(a | b == c) I'd say it's always an error. Not even almost always, but always. If D could flag this as such, it would be a good thing. I strongly feel, however, that bitwise ops should simply have a higher precedent than comparison, since the current behavior is always an error. You will not find any C code that looks like this on purpose. I don't see any reason to keep the current interpretation regardless. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4077] Bugs caused by bitwise operator precedence
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4077 --- Comment #7 from Adam D. Ruppe destructiona...@gmail.com 2010-04-12 06:42:57 PDT --- (In reply to comment #4) My experience shows that it's easy to forget bugs, because they are seen as something negative, so I suggest you to write them down :-) Aye, probably true. I think another reason why too is I usually put the parenthesis around it all the time - probably one of those things I started doing a long time ago after being hit by the bug, then over the years did out of habit without remembering specifically why I started in the first place. Requiring parenthesis or changing the precidence would be nice in any case. There's no cost I can see (outside of implementing it in the compiler, of course), and even a small benefit is better than none. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4077] Bugs caused by bitwise operator precedence
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4077 --- Comment #4 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2010-04-11 04:34:32 PDT --- Thank you for your comments. Requiring parentheses is one of the few solutions I can see. * (this is he only time I can recall being bitten by this in all my years of writing C and friends, so it really isn't a big deal to me) My experience shows that it's easy to forget bugs, because they are seen as something negative, so I suggest you to write them down :-) -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4077] Bugs caused by bitwise operator precedence
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4077 Brad Roberts bra...@puremagic.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bra...@puremagic.com --- Comment #1 from Brad Roberts bra...@puremagic.com 2010-04-10 17:20:27 PDT --- Care to quantify 'frequent'? Just because something can cause a bug doesn't make it a disaster. I can't recall ever making a bit wise precedence error myself. Of course, that too isn't proof of anything. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4077] Bugs caused by bitwise operator precedence
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4077 --- Comment #2 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2010-04-10 19:54:25 PDT --- Care to quantify 'frequent'? I'd like to, but finding hard statical data about bugs is hard. Often you just have to use your programming experience and memory of past mistakes. I have programming experience, and for the last years I am writing down all my bugs. You can ask the GCC developers what kind of statical data they have used to decide to recently introduce that warning into gcc. I think they have no reliable statistical data. But they are usually smart people, so you can't just ignore their example. Just because something can cause a bug doesn't make it a disaster. Just because something can't cause disasters but just bugs doesn't justify ignoring it. And sometimes silent bugs like this one actually cause disasters. I can't recall ever making a bit wise precedence error myself. Of course, that too isn't proof of anything. I have done several of similar bugs. Later I have taken the habit of always putting parentheses around shift and bitwise ops, if they are compound with other things. That post on the D newsgroup shows Adam Ruppe too once has done this bug. See the -Wparentheses here: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Warning-Options.html It says several interesting things. It also says: Warn if parentheses are omitted in certain contexts, such as when there is an assignment in a context where a truth value is expected, or when operators are nested whose precedence people often get confused about. They say often get confused about. That warning switch also warns against probably wrong code like (this is another common source of bugs that's missing in Python): if (a) if (b) foo (); else bar (); -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4077] Bugs caused by bitwise operator precedence
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4077 Adam D. Ruppe destructiona...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||destructiona...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Adam D. Ruppe destructiona...@gmail.com 2010-04-10 20:32:33 PDT --- Yeah, when it bit me today, I wasn't thinking about it at all. The code looked like this: assert( a|b = max); I meant (a|b) = max, but the code ended up being a|(b = max), which was fairly useless. I don't think bitwise being lower than comparison is useful, but we have the difficulty here of maintaining C compatibility. The best fix we can get, if one is really needed*, is to call it an error to have a bitwise operation next to anything that trumps it, unless parenthesis are present. The error brings instant attention to the trouble spot, and adding explicit parens is no big trouble - I, and surely many others, usually do this by habit anyway - so I'd be happy with this solution. * (this is he only time I can recall being bitten by this in all my years of writing C and friends, so it really isn't a big deal to me) -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
