[Issue 6681] struct constructor call is converted to struct literal that breaks union initialization
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6681 Andrei Alexandrescu changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|2.059 |--- Version|D1 & D2 |D2 --
[Issue 6681] struct constructor call is converted to struct literal that breaks union initialization
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6681 --- Comment #15 from github-bugzi...@puremagic.com 2012-03-15 18:30:16 PDT --- Commit pushed to master at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/296b99db347ace5e166120564146277788957eaf Merge pull request #803 from donc/ctfeunion6681yebblies Fix issue 6681 - struct constructor call is converted to struct literal ... -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 6681] struct constructor call is converted to struct literal that breaks union initialization
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6681 --- Comment #14 from github-bugzi...@puremagic.com 2012-03-14 20:16:07 PDT --- Commit pushed to master at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/commit/7cecf0090f7d22caf0efd2e1a558171013a387a5 Merge pull request #493 from donc/bug6681 Supplemental change required by regression bug 6681 -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 6681] struct constructor call is converted to struct literal that breaks union initialization
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6681 --- Comment #13 from yebblies 2012-03-13 23:32:59 EST --- Thanks for doing this. I think my branch was still letting you return partially uninitialized arrays/structs from ctfe. I also think the following should work: union U { int a, b; } int func() { U u; u.a = 3; assert(u.b == 3); return 1; } static assert(func()); But I don't know how to implement it. (it might not be worth it) Umm, test cases. (some pass, some fail, some pulled out of other test cases in dmd/phobos.) The last one should fail, I doubt it's useful leave a variable partially initialized. /* version(none) { struct S { this(int a, int b) { this.a = b; this.b = a; } union { ulong g; struct { int a; int b; } } } static immutable S s = S(1, 0); extern(C) int printf(const char *, ...); void main() { S s = .s; printf("%d %d %d\n", s.g, s.a, s.b); } } version(none) { union in6_addr { private union _in6_u_t { ubyte[16] u6_addr8; ushort[8] u6_addr16; uint[4] u6_addr32; } _in6_u_t in6_u; ubyte[16] s6_addr8; ushort[8] s6_addr16; uint[4] s6_addr32; alias s6_addr8 s6_addr; } const in6_addr IN6ADDR_ANY = { s6_addr8: [0] }; } version(none) { struct Zadok { char [4] s = void; } int quop() { Zadok pong; pong.s = ['z','x','f', 'g']; return 1; } static assert(quop()==1); static assert(quop()==1); // check for clobbering } //version = testc; version(testc) { union U { int a; int b; } int testxx() { U u; u.a = 7; u.b = 4; assert(u.a == 7); assert(u.b == 4); return 1; } static assert(testxx()); } //version = testb; version(testb) { void fillWithZero(T)(T[] arr) { foreach(ref x; arr) x = 7; } T[4] f(T)() { T[4] stackSpace = void; T[4] x = stackSpace; int y = x[0]; //int z = y + y; fillWithZero(stackSpace[]); return stackSpace; } static assert(f!int() == [7,7,7,7]); } //version = testa; version(testa) { interface SomeInterface { int daz(); float bar(char); int baz(); } interface SomeOtherInterface { int xxx(); } class TheBase : SomeInterface, SomeOtherInterface { int q = 88; int rad = 61; int a = 14; int somebaseclassfunc() { return 28;} int daz() { return 0; } int baz() { return 0; } int xxx() { return 762; } int foo() { return q; } float bar(char c) { return 3.6; } } class SomeClass : TheBase, SomeInterface { int gab = 9; int fab; int a = 17; int b = 23; int foo() { return gab + a; } float bar(char c) { return 2.6; } int something() { return 0; } int daz() { return 0; } int baz() { return 0; } } class Unrelated : TheBase { this(int x) { a = x; } } auto classtest1(int n) { SomeClass c = new SomeClass; assert(c.a == 17); assert(c.q == 88); TheBase d = c; assert(d.a == 14); assert(d.q == 88); if (n==7) { // bad cast -- should fail Unrelated u = cast(Unrelated)d; assert(u is null); } SomeClass e = cast(SomeClass)d; d.q = 35; assert(c.q == 35); assert(c.foo() == 9 + 17); ++c.a; assert(c.foo() == 9 + 18); assert(d.foo() == 9 + 18); d = new TheBase; SomeInterface fc = c; SomeOtherInterface ot = c; assert(fc.bar('x') == 2.6); assert(ot.xxx() == 762); fc = d; ot = d; assert(fc.bar('x') == 3.6); assert(ot.xxx() == 762); Unrelated u2 = new Unrelated(7); assert(u2.a == 7); return 6; } static assert(classtest1(1)); static assert(classtest1(2)); static assert(classtest1(7)); // bug 7154 } //version = testd; version(testd) { struct XY { union { int x, y; } } struct AHolder { XY aa; void a(XY x) { aa = x; } } struct AB { AHolder aHolder; XY b; void a(XY x) { aHolder.a(x); } } struct Main { AB ab; void setB() { ab.b = XY(); } void f() { ab.a(XY.init); setB(); } } } //version = teste; version(teste) { union U { int a; long b; } long test() { U u; u.a = 3; u.b = 8; return u.a + u.b; } static assert(test() == 11); } //version = testf; version(testf) { int[5] test
[Issue 6681] struct constructor call is converted to struct literal that breaks union initialization
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6681 --- Comment #12 from Don 2012-03-13 05:15:23 PDT --- https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/493 and then https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/803 -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 6681] struct constructor call is converted to struct literal that breaks union initialization
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6681 --- Comment #11 from yebblies 2012-03-04 16:45:03 EST --- (In reply to comment #10) > >It's a compiler structural problem: there's no way to specify a > struct literal with missing fields. > > I don't know about in CTFE, but in the rest of the compiler the code is in > place to just have elements[i] be NULL for missing fields. I have branch for this that mostly works, but no time to work on it at the moment. https://github.com/yebblies/dmd/tree/ctfeunion -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 6681] struct constructor call is converted to struct literal that breaks union initialization
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6681 --- Comment #10 from Walter Bright 2012-03-03 21:30:50 PST --- >It's a compiler structural problem: there's no way to specify a struct literal with missing fields. I don't know about in CTFE, but in the rest of the compiler the code is in place to just have elements[i] be NULL for missing fields. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 6681] struct constructor call is converted to struct literal that breaks union initialization
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6681 yebblies changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid AssignedTo|nob...@puremagic.com|yebbl...@gmail.com --- Comment #9 from yebblies 2012-02-17 21:07:11 EST --- I think for this to work, the interpreter needs to be able to handle uninitialized values, and unions need to default to void initializers. I have a patch for this that is nearly ready, and solves issue 6438 at the same time. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 6681] struct constructor call is converted to struct literal that breaks union initialization
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6681 --- Comment #8 from Don 2012-02-02 03:26:11 PST --- (In reply to comment #7) > Ok, I'll take a look at it tomorrow unless you want it. I know there are at > least two places it checks for overlapping union initialization, one in > expression.c and one somewhere in the glue, maybe e2ir? The big one is in init.c. Around line 340 there's code I wrote (to replace the code in 320..340). Walter disabled that code a bit later, but he didn't say why. Would be great if you could take a fresh look at it. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 6681] struct constructor call is converted to struct literal that breaks union initialization
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6681 --- Comment #7 from yebblies 2012-02-02 03:38:36 EST --- Ok, I'll take a look at it tomorrow unless you want it. I know there are at least two places it checks for overlapping union initialization, one in expression.c and one somewhere in the glue, maybe e2ir? -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 6681] struct constructor call is converted to struct literal that breaks union initialization
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6681 --- Comment #6 from Don 2012-02-01 07:13:36 PST --- (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > Not exactly. It's a compiler structural problem: there's no way to specify a > > struct literal with missing fields. Struct static initializers can do it, > > but > > struct literals cannot. > > > > I think the solution is to merge struct literals with struct static > > initializers, as it says in a TODO in the code. > > One of the D1 cases seems to have the same problem with struct static > initializers. Can't this be done by just nulling out the untouched fields in > the Expressions array and ensuring at least one field gets initialized? Maybe. The order of fields in a struct is fixed, so in theory that ought to work. It's a while since I last looked at it, but I remember there were severe problems with anonymous unions nested inside anonymous unions. There's code elsewhere in the compiler which tries to identify fields based on their type + offset, but that cannot work. It appears to work at the moment, but only because it assumes when fields are initialized in order with no gaps. Still, I've fixed some of those compiler bugs recently, so maybe it's more possible now. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 6681] struct constructor call is converted to struct literal that breaks union initialization
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6681 --- Comment #5 from yebblies 2012-02-02 00:02:06 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) > Not exactly. It's a compiler structural problem: there's no way to specify a > struct literal with missing fields. Struct static initializers can do it, but > struct literals cannot. > > I think the solution is to merge struct literals with struct static > initializers, as it says in a TODO in the code. One of the D1 cases seems to have the same problem with struct static initializers. Can't this be done by just nulling out the untouched fields in the Expressions array and ensuring at least one field gets initialized? -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 6681] struct constructor call is converted to struct literal that breaks union initialization
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6681 Don changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clugd...@yahoo.com.au --- Comment #4 from Don 2012-02-01 04:18:34 PST --- (In reply to comment #3) > > As you can see, it make a struct literal with every field accounted for. > > So this is a bug in the constfolding/ctfe code. Not exactly. It's a compiler structural problem: there's no way to specify a struct literal with missing fields. Struct static initializers can do it, but struct literals cannot. I think the solution is to merge struct literals with struct static initializers, as it says in a TODO in the code. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 6681] struct constructor call is converted to struct literal that breaks union initialization
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6681 yebblies changed: What|Removed |Added Platform|Other |All Summary|bogus duplicate union |struct constructor call is |initialization or |converted to struct literal |overlapping initialization |that breaks union |errors |initialization OS/Version|Mac OS X|All --- Comment #3 from yebblies 2012-02-01 23:10:11 EST --- Got my test cases a little mixed up there, but it's still mostly valid. All of the non-struct-literal struct construction seems to be converted into struct literals. eg. struct S { this(int a, int b) { this.a = b; this.b = a; } union { ulong g; struct {int a, b; }; } } static immutable S s = S(0, 1); Prints: (with a little extra debug output) StructLiteralExp::semantic('S(0LU,1,0)') S Error: duplicate union initialization for a Error: duplicate union initialization for b As you can see, it make a struct literal with every field accounted for. So this is a bug in the constfolding/ctfe code. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---