[Issue 3854] Error on static initialization of arrays with trailing comma.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3854 --- Comment #7 from Iain Buclaw ibuc...@ubuntu.com 2010-04-02 04:27:27 PDT --- (In reply to comment #6) (In reply to comment #5) Attached is a patch that resolves the issue. Am not sure that the patch in the other bug report is reasonably correct, but hey ho! Regards Iain Eh? What makes you think it isn't? Well, from what I can tell, if I were to have the following code excerpt: int[] a = [1]]; The scan ahead routine will swallow the [1], and since (--brackets == 0), takes a peek at the last bracket, to which it matches in the if statement and says 'yep, that is OK'. In other words, it assumes that whether or not the above line is correct has already been checked, or will be checked later on during the compile (which I don't doubt it already has, but at least see it better to have some sort of sanitisation when checking things). -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3854] Error on static initialization of arrays with trailing comma.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3854 --- Comment #8 from Ellery Newcomer ellery-newco...@utulsa.edu 2010-04-02 09:50:23 PDT --- (In reply to comment #7) Eh? What makes you think it isn't? Well, from what I can tell, if I were to have the following code excerpt: int[] a = [1]]; The scan ahead routine will swallow the [1], and since (--brackets == 0), takes a peek at the last bracket, to which it matches in the if statement and says 'yep, that is OK'. In other words, it assumes that whether or not the above line is correct has already been checked, or will be checked later on during the compile (which I don't doubt it already has, but at least see it better to have some sort of sanitisation when checking things). The scan ahead doesn't swallow anything. It does see only [1] and because (--brackets == 0) it says I'm going to parse this as ArrayInitializer, which it does. The next loop (the ArrayInitializer rule) swallows [1], and no more. Then parseInitializer is done. The function that called parseInitializer (parseDeclarations or whatever), will expect a semicolon or comma to be the next token, and when it sees lbracket, it errors. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4042] New: Unable to instantiate a struct template.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4042 Summary: Unable to instantiate a struct template. Product: D Version: unspecified Platform: Other OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: blocker Priority: P2 Component: DMD AssignedTo: nob...@puremagic.com ReportedBy: e.insafutdi...@gmail.com --- Comment #0 from Eldar Insafutdinov e.insafutdi...@gmail.com 2010-04-02 10:25:58 PDT --- Created an attachment (id=598) testcase When compiling the attached code I get main.d(51): Error: this for ref_ needs to be type QList not type QList!(QGraphicsWidget) main.d(51): Error: struct main.QList!(QGraphicsWidget).QList member ref_ is not accessible This bug caused a lot of headache and held off development of QtD for quite a while. I was finally able to reduce it to the sensible sized test-case(originally the number of source files was about 500). If you play with the testcase you'll find out that even slight modifications will lead to change of the error message or to disappearing of it. Something is going horribly wrong in the compiler. The version I tested it with is 2.042 which is not present on the list. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4043] New: Class is forward referenced when looking for sizeof
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4043 Summary: Class is forward referenced when looking for sizeof Product: D Version: unspecified Platform: Other OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: critical Priority: P2 Component: DMD AssignedTo: nob...@puremagic.com ReportedBy: e.insafutdi...@gmail.com --- Comment #0 from Eldar Insafutdinov e.insafutdi...@gmail.com 2010-04-02 10:42:37 PDT --- main.d(41): Error: class main.QGraphicsWidget is forward referenced when looking for 'sizeof' main.d(14): Error: template instance main.QTypeInfo!(QGraphicsWidget) error instantiating main.d(49):instantiated from here: QList!(QGraphicsWidget) It is based on the a modified testcase from http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4042 and may actually be the same issue. But since it shows quite a different error message, I am putting it as a separate report. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4043] Class is forward referenced when looking for sizeof
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4043 --- Comment #1 from Eldar Insafutdinov e.insafutdi...@gmail.com 2010-04-02 10:43:05 PDT --- Created an attachment (id=599) testcase -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4044] New: [Tracker] Bad debug information and DWARF errors
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4044 Summary: [Tracker] Bad debug information and DWARF errors Product: D Version: 1.055 Platform: Other OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: DMD AssignedTo: nob...@puremagic.com ReportedBy: rob...@octarineparrot.com --- Comment #0 from Robert Clipsham rob...@octarineparrot.com 2010-04-02 21:45:09 BST --- This tracker bug is intended to keep track of all issues that cause difficulties with debugging D. These include invalid DWARF output, errors from gdb or other debuggers that appear to be caused by bad debugging information, as well as any other issues that make debugging D applications difficult or even impossible. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4045] New: [CTFE] increasing array length
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4045
Summary: [CTFE] increasing array length
Product: D
Version: future
Platform: x86
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: DMD
AssignedTo: nob...@puremagic.com
ReportedBy: bearophile_h...@eml.cc
--- Comment #0 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2010-04-02 14:21:48 PDT ---
(Not tested with the latest bug fixes, so this can be already fixed)
int foo() {
int[] a;
a.length = 1;
return 0;
}
enum int _ = foo();
void main() {}
dmd 2.042 gives:
test.d(3): Error: (a.length) = 1u cannot be evaluated at compile time
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4046] New: [CTFE] std.intrinsic
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4046
Summary: [CTFE] std.intrinsic
Product: D
Version: future
Platform: x86
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: DMD
AssignedTo: nob...@puremagic.com
ReportedBy: bearophile_h...@eml.cc
--- Comment #0 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2010-04-02 14:25:39 PDT ---
import std.intrinsic: bt;
int foo() {
uint x = uint.max;
return bt(x, 5);
}
int _ = foo();
void main() {}
dmd 2.042 gives:
test.d(4): Error: cannot evaluate bt(( x),5u) at compile time
test.d(6): Error: cannot evaluate foo() at compile time
test.d(6): Error: cannot evaluate foo() at compile time
In CTFE the the compiler can replace the intrinsics with little functions with
the same semantics.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4047] New: [CTFE] class/struct heap allocation
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4047
Summary: [CTFE] class/struct heap allocation
Product: D
Version: future
Platform: x86
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P2
Component: DMD
AssignedTo: nob...@puremagic.com
ReportedBy: bearophile_h...@eml.cc
--- Comment #0 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2010-04-02 14:31:22 PDT ---
struct Foo {}
class Bar {}
int spam() {
Foo* f = new Foo();
Bar b = new Bar();
return 0;
}
enum int _ = spam();
void main() {}
dmd 2.042 gives:
test.d(4): Error: Cannot interpret new Foo at compile time
test.d(8): Error: cannot evaluate spam() at compile time
test.d(8): Error: cannot evaluate spam() at compile time
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4048] New: [CTFE] struct initializer
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4048
Summary: [CTFE] struct initializer
Product: D
Version: future
Platform: x86
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: DMD
AssignedTo: nob...@puremagic.com
ReportedBy: bearophile_h...@eml.cc
--- Comment #0 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2010-04-02 14:34:02 PDT ---
(Not tested with the latest bug fixes)
struct Foo {
/*static*/ struct Bar { int x; }
Bar b = { x: 1 };
}
int spam() {
Foo f;
return 0;
}
void main() {
enum int _ = spam();
}
dmd 2.042 gives (with no line of error):
Error: cannot make expression out of initializer for b
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4049] New: enum constant with no initializer
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4049
Summary: enum constant with no initializer
Product: D
Version: future
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P2
Component: DMD
AssignedTo: nob...@puremagic.com
ReportedBy: bearophile_h...@eml.cc
--- Comment #0 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2010-04-02 14:37:38 PDT ---
This program correctly gives an error message, but I don't see why this code is
wrong, here f can be just f.init:
struct Foo {}
enum Foo f;
void main() {}
dmd 2.042 gives:
test.d(2): Error: variable test.f manifest constants must have initializers
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3387] gdb: symbols in the backtrace are not demangled
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3387 Robert Clipsham rob...@octarineparrot.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|wrong-code | Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||rob...@octarineparrot.com Resolution||INVALID --- Comment #3 from Robert Clipsham rob...@octarineparrot.com 2010-04-02 22:46:37 BST --- I've removed the wrong-code keyword, and closing this bug, as it isn't a dmd issue. The code generated is correct, as -gc means D should pretend to be C... Which means symbol names have to be mangled, as otherwise they are not valid C symbols. It also means gdb won't demangle them, as it detects C and not D. The correct solution for this bug is to add support for the D extensions to gdb, there's nothing dmd can do about this without adding another debugging mode, something I think is best avoided. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4050] New: [CTFE] array struct member slice update
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4050
Summary: [CTFE] array struct member slice update
Product: D
Version: future
Platform: x86
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: DMD
AssignedTo: nob...@puremagic.com
ReportedBy: bearophile_h...@eml.cc
--- Comment #0 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2010-04-02 14:47:06 PDT ---
(Not tested with the latest bug fixes, so this can be already fixed)
struct Foo {
int[1] data;
}
int bar() {
Foo f;
f.data = [1];
return 0;
}
enum int _ = bar();
void main() {}
dmd 2.042 gives:
test.d(6): Error: Slice operation f.data[] = [1] cannot be evaluated at compile
time
test.d(9): Error: cannot evaluate bar() at compile time
test.d(9): Error: cannot evaluate bar() at compile time
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4052] New: [CTFE] increment from array item
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4052
Summary: [CTFE] increment from array item
Product: D
Version: future
Platform: x86
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: DMD
AssignedTo: nob...@puremagic.com
ReportedBy: bearophile_h...@eml.cc
--- Comment #0 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2010-04-02 14:49:25 PDT ---
(Not tested with the latest bug fixes, so this can be already fixed)
int foo() {
int[] arr = new int[1];
int s;
foreach (x; arr)
s += x;
foreach (x; arr)
s += x * x;
return 0;
}
enum int _ = foo();
void main() {}
dmd 2.042 gives:
Error: Integer constant expression expected instead of null
test.d(10): Error: cannot evaluate foo() at compile time
test.d(10): Error: cannot evaluate foo() at compile time
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4053] New: To avoid struct ctor/opCall conflicts
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4053
Summary: To avoid struct ctor/opCall conflicts
Product: D
Version: future
Platform: x86
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: DMD
AssignedTo: nob...@puremagic.com
ReportedBy: bearophile_h...@eml.cc
--- Comment #0 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2010-04-02 17:03:42 PDT ---
This is a D2 program:
struct Foo {
this(int x=0) {}
static void opCall(int x, int y) {}
}
void main() {
auto f2 = Foo(1);// line 6, OK
auto f3 = Foo(1, 2); // line 7, Err, opCall not found
auto f1 = Foo(); // line 8, Err, conflicts with opCall again
}
dmd 2.042 gives:
test.d(7): Error: constructor test.Foo.this (int x = 0) is not callable using
argument types (int,int)
test.d(7): Error: expected 1 arguments, not 2 for non-variadic function type
ref Foo(int x = 0)
test.d(8): Error: function test.Foo.opCall (int x, int y) is not callable using
argument types ()
test.d(8): Error: expected 2 function arguments, not 0
test.d(8): Error: variable test.main.f1 voids have no value
test.d(8): Error: expression opCall() is void and has no value
My suggestion is in structs to disallow opCall() if a this() is present.
This makes the program more tidy, and avoids that conflict with opCall when
Foo() is used with no arguments.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4055] New: ICE(tocsym.c:407) virtual Symbol* FuncDeclaration::toSymbol(): Assertion `0' failed.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4055
Summary: ICE(tocsym.c:407) virtual Symbol*
FuncDeclaration::toSymbol(): Assertion `0' failed.
Product: D
Version: 2.041
Platform: Other
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: DMD
AssignedTo: nob...@puremagic.com
ReportedBy: rob...@octarineparrot.com
--- Comment #0 from Robert Clipsham rob...@octarineparrot.com 2010-04-03
04:45:34 BST ---
Test case:
a.d:
import b;
class Sub : Super
{
int fail()
{
return Super.fail();
}
}
b.d:
class Super
{
int fail()
out (result) {}
body
{
assert(0);
}
}
Compile with dmd -c a.d. If you compile with dmd a.d b.d the ICE does not
occur. DMD outputs:
b.d(5): Error: function __ensure forward declaration
linkage = 0
dmd: tocsym.c:407: virtual Symbol* FuncDeclaration::toSymbol(): Assertion `0'
failed.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4055] ICE(tocsym.c:407) virtual Symbol* FuncDeclaration::toSymbol(): Assertion `0' failed.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4055 --- Comment #1 from Robert Clipsham rob...@octarineparrot.com 2010-04-03 04:48:57 BST --- I should note this is blocking a linux port of ddmd. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4054] ICE(eh.c) line 49
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4054 --- Comment #1 from Robert Clipsham rob...@octarineparrot.com 2010-04-03 04:49:17 BST --- I should note that this is blocking a linux port of ddmd. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4056] New: Template instantiation with bare parameter not documented
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4056 Summary: Template instantiation with bare parameter not documented Product: D Version: 2.041 Platform: All URL: http://digitalmars.com/d/2.0/template.html OS/Version: All Status: NEW Keywords: spec Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: www.digitalmars.com AssignedTo: nob...@puremagic.com ReportedBy: jlqu...@optonline.net --- Comment #0 from Jerry Quinn jlqu...@optonline.net 2010-04-02 21:24:02 PDT --- I've recently seen people using template instances like: mytemplate!int var; The docs don't say anything about this form, nor do the release notes for that matter. Either it's a bug (I assume not) or the spec needs to document it. I assume this form is only good for single template parameters. Are there other limits on what parameters can be used in this way? -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4054] ICE(eh.c) line 49
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4054 Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clugd...@yahoo.com.au --- Comment #2 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2010-04-02 22:35:29 PDT --- See also bug 3753, which also triggers the same ICE. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4055] ICE(tocsym.c:407) virtual Symbol* FuncDeclaration::toSymbol(): Assertion `0' failed.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4055 Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clugd...@yahoo.com.au --- Comment #2 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2010-04-02 22:37:23 PDT --- Duplicate of 3602? -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
