[Issue 2544] implicit const casting rules allow violations of const-safety
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2544 --- Comment #8 from Steven Schveighoffer 2010-03-16 20:19:39 PDT --- It appears that the offending code still compiles in dmd 2.041. I can't remember why I thought the given changeset should fix the problem, maybe it was fixed and then regressed. In any case, it's still broken. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 1426] const(templated class) allows calling mutable methods
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1426 Steven Schveighoffer changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||schvei...@yahoo.com Resolution||FIXED --- Comment #1 from Steven Schveighoffer 2010-03-16 20:08:30 PDT --- Unsure of the version this was fixed, but it works as of 2.041. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 1339] Invariant/const-ness is broken by built-in array properties sort and reverse
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1339
Steven Schveighoffer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||schvei...@yahoo.com
Summary|Invariant/const-ness is |Invariant/const-ness is
|broken by built-in array|broken by built-in array
|properties |properties sort and reverse
--- Comment #9 from Steven Schveighoffer 2010-03-16
20:06:45 PDT ---
The length property problems of this bug are fixed via the patch in bug 3637.
This was incorporated in dmd 2.041.
The original test case for the length was invalid.
the code still prints 4 3 2 0, because it is OK to append to an
invariant(int)[].
A valid test that would have failed prior to 2.041:
import std.stdio;
void main()
{
invariant(int)[] x = [1,2,3,4];
auto y = x;
x.length = x.length - 1;
x.length = x.length + 1;
writeln(y); // prints 1 2 3 4 (prior to 2.041 would print 1 2 3 0)
writeln(x); // prints 1 2 3 0
}
The sort and reverse property bugs remain valid bugs.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 2093] string concatenation modifies original
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2093 Steven Schveighoffer changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED --- Comment #15 from Steven Schveighoffer 2010-03-16 19:55:38 PDT --- This is fixed by the patch in bug 3637. It is in dmd 2.041. Compiling the attached file results in the desired output. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3978] Compiler crash on improper struct initialization
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3978
bearophile_h...@eml.cc changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bearophile_h...@eml.cc
--- Comment #1 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2010-03-16 18:10:41 PDT ---
I think that removing the forward reference doesn't solve the problem.
If I add this line at the end:
void main() {}
The situation changes.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3976] segfault on anonymous struct/union
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3976 --- Comment #1 from Ellery Newcomer 2010-03-16 17:35:57 PDT --- Okay, for some reason my test case doesn't seem to be working. I'm sure it was earlier, but I deleted the file, etc. I can still get the segfault with my original (humongous) code, as well as a few others if the structs are rearranged a little. But I'm not whittling it down again. Here it is if anyone cares: http://personal.utulsa.edu/~ellery-newcomer/dxl.zip unzip it and run dmd @kmd. the problem file is src/dxl/read/biff/FilePassRecord.d -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3978] New: Compiler crash on improper struct initialization
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3978
Summary: Compiler crash on improper struct initialization
Product: D
Version: 2.030
Platform: x86
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: DMD
AssignedTo: nob...@puremagic.com
ReportedBy: paul.d.ander...@comcast.net
--- Comment #0 from Paul D. Anderson 2010-03-16
17:18:14 PDT ---
The following code fragment causes the compiler to crash with the following
useful information:
"dmd.exe has encountered a problem and needs to close. We are sorry for the
inconvenience."
//
public S s = S();
public struct S {
private int[] a = [ 0 ];
}
//
I realize the code is incorrect, but I expected an error message, not a
trainwreck.
Adding initializer information solves the problem:
//
public S s = S([0]); // compiles correctly
public struct S {
private int[] a = [ 0 ];
}
//
Eliminating the forward reference solves the problem:
//
public struct S {
private int[] a = [ 0 ];
}
public S s = S(); // compiles correctly
//
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 2095] covariance w/o typechecks = bugs
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095 Steven Schveighoffer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bugzi...@digitalmars.com --- Comment #10 from Steven Schveighoffer 2010-03-16 14:23:01 PDT --- *** Issue 3977 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. *** -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3977] Should disable implicit conversion of B[] to A[] when B is derived from A
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3977 Steven Schveighoffer changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||schvei...@yahoo.com Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Comment #1 from Steven Schveighoffer 2010-03-16 14:23:00 PDT --- Been around for a while. *** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of issue 2095 *** -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3977] New: Should disable implicit conversion of B[] to A[] when B is derived from A
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3977
Summary: Should disable implicit conversion of B[] to A[] when
B is derived from A
Product: D
Version: unspecified
Platform: Other
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: DMD
AssignedTo: nob...@puremagic.com
ReportedBy: bugzi...@digitalmars.com
--- Comment #0 from Walter Bright 2010-03-16
14:17:50 PDT ---
This exposes a potential memory corruption problem:
class A {}
class B : A {}
void proc(A[] x, A y) {
x[0] = y;
}
void main() {
B[] anArrayOfB = new B[5];
A a = new A();
proc(anArrayOfB, a);
}
The solution is to disable implicit conversion of B[] to A[], but B[] to
const(A)[] and immutable(B)[] to immutable(A)[] should be allowed.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3972] Regarding module with name different from its file name
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3972
Don changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
CC||clugd...@yahoo.com.au
--- Comment #1 from Don 2010-03-16 13:58:43 PDT ---
I actually hit this today and got sufficiently irritated to improve the error
message a bit. The 'else' clause should also be improved, it's bug 2059
("Horrible error message"). Perhaps change it to (untested):
error(loc, "has inconsistent naming. It was imported as %s", srcname);
Index: module.c
===
--- module.c(revision 416)
+++ module.c(working copy)
@@ -621,7 +621,10 @@
if (!dst->insert(this))
{
if (md)
-error(loc, "is in multiple packages %s", md->toChars());
+{
+error(loc, "has inconsistent naming.\n"
+"It was imported as %s but module declaration is %s", srcname,
md->toChars());
+}
else
error(loc, "is in multiple defined");
}
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3965] Multiple "static this()" can be a little error-prone
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3965 Walter Bright changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||bugzi...@digitalmars.com Resolution||WONTFIX --- Comment #3 from Walter Bright 2010-03-16 13:03:58 PDT --- I believe this is a valuable feature for D. Sure, you can write convoluted code with it, but so you can in general with any programming construct. Forcing it all into one static constructor can also be confusing, because it takes away locality of operations, which can cause its own confusion. Won't implement. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3976] New: segfault on anonymous struct/union
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3976
Summary: segfault on anonymous struct/union
Product: D
Version: 1.057
Platform: Other
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: DMD
AssignedTo: nob...@puremagic.com
ReportedBy: ellery-newco...@utulsa.edu
--- Comment #0 from Ellery Newcomer 2010-03-16
12:24:31 PDT ---
struct A{
struct{
B b;
C c;
}
}
struct B{
int i;
}
struct C{
int j;
}
and DMD bombs out. Seems to be a forward referencing problem, as the
AnonDeclaration's scope never gets set.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3975] New: Misnamed main causes linker errors
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3975
Summary: Misnamed main causes linker errors
Product: D
Version: 1.057
Platform: Other
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: DMD
AssignedTo: nob...@puremagic.com
ReportedBy: baseball@gmail.com
--- Comment #0 from Michael P 2010-03-16 08:15:49 PDT
---
typo.d:
void mann() { }
mich...@michael-laptop:~/d/projects$ dmd typo.d
/home/michael/dmd/linux/bin/../lib/libphobos.a(dmain2_7a_1a5.o): In function
`main':
internal/dmain2.d:(.text.main+0x74): undefined reference to `_Dmain'
internal/dmain2.d:(.text.main+0xc5): undefined reference to `_Dmain'
/home/michael/dmd/linux/bin/../lib/libphobos.a(deh2_171_525.o): In function
`_D4deh213__eh_finddataFPvZPS4deh213DHandlerTable':
internal/deh2.d:(.text._D4deh213__eh_finddataFPvZPS4deh213DHandlerTable+0x4):
undefined reference to `_deh_beg'
internal/deh2.d:(.text._D4deh213__eh_finddataFPvZPS4deh213DHandlerTable+0xc):
undefined reference to `_deh_beg'
internal/deh2.d:(.text._D4deh213__eh_finddataFPvZPS4deh213DHandlerTable+0x13):
undefined reference to `_deh_end'
internal/deh2.d:(.text._D4deh213__eh_finddataFPvZPS4deh213DHandlerTable+0x37):
undefined reference to `_deh_end'
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
--- errorlevel 1
Should this be happening?
Compiling with -c is fine, and produces no output.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3974] ICE(init.c): Static array initializer with more elements than destination array
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3974 bearophile_h...@eml.cc changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bearophile_h...@eml.cc --- Comment #1 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2010-03-16 05:20:36 PDT --- Regarding bug 3849, I did put both things in the same bug report because: - they are strongly semantically related, the compiler has to refuse fixed sized literals with a number of items different from the number specified on the left (this is true for nD arrays too); - The cause of this ICE can be related to the lack of tests over the number of items in the literal compared to the number on the left. So fixing one bug can even fix the other too, or it can be very quick to fix one when you fix the other. That's why I have not originally marked that as enhancement. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3849] [missing error] Array literal length doesn't match
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3849 Don changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code | CC||clugd...@yahoo.com.au Severity|normal |enhancement --- Comment #2 from Don 2010-03-16 01:09:43 PDT --- I've moved the ICE in the comment to bug 3974. The original issue is an enhancement. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3974] New: ICE(init.c): Static array initializer with more elements than destination array
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3974
Summary: ICE(init.c): Static array initializer with more
elements than destination array
Product: D
Version: 2.040
Platform: Other
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: DMD
AssignedTo: nob...@puremagic.com
ReportedBy: clugd...@yahoo.com.au
--- Comment #0 from Don 2010-03-16 01:08:35 PDT ---
Reported in a comment in bug 3849.
void main() {
struct S { int x; }
S[2] a = [{1}, {2}, {3}];
}
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3884] Segfault: defining a typedef with an invalid object.d
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3884
Don changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #3 from Don 2010-03-16 01:02:39 PDT ---
This is really obscure, but here's a patch:
typeinf.c, line 108:
Expression *Type::getTypeInfo(Scope *sc)
{
Expression *e;
Type *t;
+if (!Type::typeinfo)
+{
+error(0, "TypeInfo not found. object.d may be incorrectly installed or
corrupt");
+return new ErrorExp();
+}
//printf("Type::getTypeInfo() %p, %s\n", this, toChars());
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
