[Issue 16699] [REG 2.070] stack corruption with scope(exit)

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16699 --- Comment #34 from github-bugzi...@puremagic.com --- Commits pushed to newCTFE at https://github.com/dlang/dmd https://github.com/dlang/dmd/commit/a96a3f976204011f083b9af2353e839fcbd8dc72 fix Issue 16699 - [REG 2.070] stack corruption with scope

[Issue 16699] [REG 2.070] stack corruption with scope(exit)

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16699 --- Comment #33 from github-bugzi...@puremagic.com --- Commits pushed to scope at https://github.com/dlang/dmd https://github.com/dlang/dmd/commit/a96a3f976204011f083b9af2353e839fcbd8dc72 fix Issue 16699 - [REG 2.070] stack corruption with scope

[Issue 16699] [REG 2.070] stack corruption with scope(exit)

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16699 --- Comment #32 from github-bugzi...@puremagic.com --- Commits pushed to master at https://github.com/dlang/dmd https://github.com/dlang/dmd/commit/a96a3f976204011f083b9af2353e839fcbd8dc72 fix Issue 16699 - [REG 2.070] stack corruption with scope

[Issue 16699] [REG 2.070] stack corruption with scope(exit)

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16699 --- Comment #31 from anonymous4 --- The obvious solution is to create a different merge PR that will just merge and nothing more. --

[Issue 16699] [REG 2.070] stack corruption with scope(exit)

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16699 --- Comment #30 from Steven Schveighoffer --- (In reply to Ketmar Dark from comment #29) > ok, i'm giving up. if inability to merge master is simply dismissed with > "this is not a typical occurence" excuse, i have nothing else

[Issue 16699] [REG 2.070] stack corruption with scope(exit)

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16699 --- Comment #29 from Ketmar Dark --- ok, i'm giving up. if inability to merge master is simply dismissed with "this is not a typical occurence" excuse, i have nothing else to say. --

[Issue 16699] [REG 2.070] stack corruption with scope(exit)

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16699 --- Comment #28 from Steven Schveighoffer --- ketmar, since 11 days ago, merge from stable to master has been created. However, there is some issue (which I admittedly have no understanding of), and when that issue is resolved,

[Issue 16699] [REG 2.070] stack corruption with scope(exit)

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16699 --- Comment #27 from Ketmar Dark --- oops. you provided PR that doesn't belong to this thread, and i didn't checked it properly. still, my point stands. ;-) --

[Issue 16699] [REG 2.070] stack corruption with scope(exit)

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16699 --- Comment #26 from Ketmar Dark --- and now we have this "fix" in *stable*! do you still think that "nothing should be changed"? for me, this issue clearly indicates that something is *very* broken in the current scheme.

[Issue 16699] [REG 2.070] stack corruption with scope(exit)

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16699 --- Comment #25 from Steven Schveighoffer --- Looks like there is a snag: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6287 --

[Issue 16699] [REG 2.070] stack corruption with scope(exit)

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16699 --- Comment #24 from Ketmar Dark --- so, time is passing on. nothing was merged to master. versions diverges more and more. definitely, the system works just fine. i can't see nothing that should be changed in the way things

[Issue 16699] [REG 2.070] stack corruption with scope(exit)

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16699 --- Comment #23 from Steven Schveighoffer --- (In reply to Ketmar Dark from comment #22) > (In reply to Steven Schveighoffer from comment #21) > > People file bug reports for released compilers not realizing it's already > >

[Issue 16699] [REG 2.070] stack corruption with scope(exit)

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16699 --- Comment #22 from Ketmar Dark --- (In reply to Steven Schveighoffer from comment #21) > Says the guy who thinks creating a github account is an undue burden ;) let's be fair here: i believe that increasing gh userbase in

[Issue 16699] [REG 2.070] stack corruption with scope(exit)

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16699 Steven Schveighoffer changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Issue 16699] [REG 2.070] stack corruption with scope(exit)

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16699 --- Comment #20 from anonymous4 --- (In reply to hsteoh from comment #18) > @Steven: I see your point about preventing redundant fixes. But it's still > confusing that a bug has been resolved as fixed, yet the bug persists

[Issue 16699] [REG 2.070] stack corruption with scope(exit)

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16699 --- Comment #19 from Ketmar Dark --- actually, i believe that no merges from stable to master should be done at all. if hotfix is applicable to both branches, it should go to both branches, first in master, and then,

[Issue 16699] [REG 2.070] stack corruption with scope(exit)

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16699 --- Comment #18 from hst...@quickfur.ath.cx --- @Steven: I see your point about preventing redundant fixes. But it's still confusing that a bug has been resolved as fixed, yet the bug persists in master. :-) Is there a way for bugzilla to indicate

[Issue 16699] [REG 2.070] stack corruption with scope(exit)

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16699 --- Comment #17 from Steven Schveighoffer --- (In reply to Ketmar Dark from comment #15) > the whole process is broken: under no circumstances any hotfix that is > applicable both to master and to stable can land in stable

[Issue 16699] [REG 2.070] stack corruption with scope(exit)

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16699 --- Comment #16 from Steven Schveighoffer --- (In reply to Ketmar Dark from comment #15) > the whole process is broken: under no circumstances any hotfix that is > applicable both to master and to stable can land in stable

[Issue 16699] [REG 2.070] stack corruption with scope(exit)

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16699 --- Comment #15 from Ketmar Dark --- the whole process is broken: under no circumstances any hotfix that is applicable both to master and to stable can land in stable first. --

[Issue 16699] [REG 2.070] stack corruption with scope(exit)

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16699 --- Comment #14 from hst...@quickfur.ath.cx --- Eventually all fixes in stable get merged to master. It's just that in the interim, I'm wondering whether bugs that still exist in master should be kept open until the merge happens, or as soon as

[Issue 16699] [REG 2.070] stack corruption with scope(exit)

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16699 Ketmar Dark changed: What|Removed |Added See Also|https://issues.dlang.org/sh |

[Issue 16699] [REG 2.070] stack corruption with scope(exit)

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16699 --- Comment #10 from hst...@quickfur.ath.cx --- Is it customary to close bugs once they are fixed in stable, even though the fix has not yet been merged to git HEAD? --

[Issue 16699] [REG 2.070] stack corruption with scope(exit)

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16699 --- Comment #11 from hst...@quickfur.ath.cx --- 'cos this is not yet working in git HEAD. --

[Issue 16699] [REG 2.070] stack corruption with scope(exit)

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16699 --- Comment #9 from ag0ae...@gmail.com --- *** Issue 16698 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. *** --

[Issue 16699] [REG 2.070] stack corruption with scope(exit)

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16699 github-bugzi...@puremagic.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Issue 16699] [REG 2.070] stack corruption with scope(exit)

(exit) https://github.com/dlang/dmd/commit/7776ed4d7e33cd9edae02d15120a9a6c43239a80 Merge pull request #6261 from WalterBright/fix16699 fix Issue 16699 - [REG 2.070] stack corruption with scope(exit) --

[Issue 16699] [REG 2.070] stack corruption with scope(exit)

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16699 Ketmar Dark changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Issue 16699] [REG 2.070] stack corruption with scope(exit)

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16699 --- Comment #7 from Walter Bright --- It's not even a regression. It's always been there, lurking. --

[Issue 16699] [REG 2.070] stack corruption with scope(exit)

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16699 Walter Bright changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Issue 16699] [REG 2.070] stack corruption with scope(exit)

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16699 --- Comment #5 from hst...@quickfur.ath.cx --- Unfortunately, the -O trick doesn't work with issue 16698. So it's not a reliable workaround for this bug. --

[Issue 16699] [REG 2.070] stack corruption with scope(exit)

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16699 --- Comment #4 from hst...@quickfur.ath.cx --- Yet another data point: compiling with -O makes the problem go away(!). Somehow, I guess the optimizer must be working at a higher level of abstraction, and was able to deduce the correct semantics and

[Issue 16699] [REG 2.070] stack corruption with scope(exit)

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16699 --- Comment #3 from hst...@quickfur.ath.cx --- P.S., in the bad code case, %rax contains the address of a local variable used to store the static array, but %rdx appears to contain the correct return value. Did the codegen somehow fail to leave the

[Issue 16699] [REG 2.070] stack corruption with scope(exit)

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16699 --- Comment #2 from hst...@quickfur.ath.cx --- Looking at the assembly, it seems like a codegen bug. The static array is actually correctly initialized with the return value, but when scope(exit){} is uncommented, the return value (%eax) is never

[Issue 16699] [REG 2.070] stack corruption with scope(exit)

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16699 anonymous4 changed: What|Removed |Added See Also|

[Issue 16699] [REG 2.070] stack corruption with scope(exit)

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16699 Marc Schütz changed: What|Removed |Added CC||schue...@gmx.net ---

[Issue 16699] [REG 2.070] stack corruption with scope(exit)

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16699 hst...@quickfur.ath.cx changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hst...@quickfur.ath.cx --