[Issue 10920] template instantiation order dependent link failure problem
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10920 --- Comment #9 from github-bugzi...@puremagic.com --- Commits pushed to https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/0b695233589c6124a359645137aea803e2fe84e4 fix Issue 10920 - template instantiation order dependent link failure problem https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/c4387428c034ae83fa2504379c68ed3ac354d58f Merge pull request #4384 from 9rnsr/fix2644 --
[Issue 10920] template instantiation order dependent link failure problem
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10920 --- Comment #8 from github-bugzi...@puremagic.com --- Commits pushed to master at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/0b695233589c6124a359645137aea803e2fe84e4 fix Issue 10920 - template instantiation order dependent link failure problem https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/c4387428c034ae83fa2504379c68ed3ac354d58f Merge pull request #4384 from 9rnsr/fix2644 Issue 2644 2500 10920 - Unresolved template reference --
[Issue 10920] template instantiation order dependent link failure problem
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10920 github-bugzi...@puremagic.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --
[Issue 10920] template instantiation order dependent link failure problem
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10920 Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||pull --- Comment #7 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com --- https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/4384 --
[Issue 10920] template instantiation order dependent link failure problem
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10920
--- Comment #6 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com ---
Sorry, the OP code was not correct. Precise test case is:
// foo.d
import bar;
void main() {
BitArray ba;
version(A) pragma(msg, typeof(ba.toString));
FormatSpec!char fs;
fs.func();
}
// bar.d
(same with in comment #0)
Command line:
$ dmd foo.d
-- OK
$ dmd -version=A foo.d
void()
OPTLINK (R) for Win32 Release 8.00.15
Copyright (C) Digital Mars 1989-2013 All rights reserved.
http://www.digitalmars.com/ctg/optlink.html
foo.obj(foo)
Error 42: Symbol Undefined
_D3bar18__T10FormatSpecTaZ10FormatSpec4funcMFNaNbNiNfZv
--- errorlevel 1
-- NG
FormatSpec!char is instantiated in both main() and BitArray.toString(). When
-version=A specified, the first instantiation happens in toString(), and its
codegen is wrongly judged to be unnecessary. And the second instantiation is
ignored and link-failure occurs.
It's definitely an issue that depends on the semantic analysis order.
--
[Issue 10920] template instantiation order dependent link failure problem
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10920 Denis Shelomovskij verylonglogin@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||verylonglogin@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Denis Shelomovskij verylonglogin@gmail.com 2013-09-24 12:26:53 MSD --- ...and others - had increased the criticalness of this issue. Filed particualr regression Issue 4. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 10920] template instantiation order dependent link failure problem
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10920 Dicebot pub...@dicebot.lv changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pub...@dicebot.lv --- Comment #3 from Dicebot pub...@dicebot.lv 2013-09-24 09:53:39 PDT --- I think it was already discussed in that Walters pull request and rejected as invalid. If `foo.d` imports `bar.d` it MUST also compile `bar.d` too and link into the final application. In provided snippet `FormatSpec!char` should always be expected to be in `bar.d` during separate compilation. It may also be _additionally_ emitted to `foo.d` as a weak symbol if `foo.d` code flow runs semantic on it first, but that will be taken care of by linker. D does not have headers, every single module is expected to be compiled and linked. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 10920] template instantiation order dependent link failure problem
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10920 --- Comment #4 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2013-09-24 18:56:59 PDT --- (In reply to comment #3) I think it was already discussed in that Walters pull request and rejected as invalid. If `foo.d` imports `bar.d` it MUST also compile `bar.d` too and link into the final application. My question and Walter's reply: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/2550#issuecomment-24296228 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/2550#issuecomment-24297212 But I still worries that the current design is difficult to understand. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 10920] template instantiation order dependent link failure problem
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10920 --- Comment #5 from Dicebot pub...@dicebot.lv 2013-09-24 19:01:56 PDT --- (In reply to comment #4) (In reply to comment #3) I think it was already discussed in that Walters pull request and rejected as invalid. If `foo.d` imports `bar.d` it MUST also compile `bar.d` too and link into the final application. My question and Walter's reply: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/2550#issuecomment-24296228 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/2550#issuecomment-24297212 But I still worries that the current design is difficult to understand. Yeah, that is exactly the comments I was referring to, thanks. And I completely agree with Walter here - this is difficult to understand only if you think about modules in a similar way as C headers, but those are not. Average programmer should care about internal design as much as he cares about exact optimization algorithms in backend. Omitting some modules during compilation is illegal and likely to break the program in some way (not only current one), that should be told explicitly in spec if it is not already. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 10920] template instantiation order dependent link failure problem
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10920 --- Comment #1 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2013-08-29 01:03:48 PDT --- I think this is one of the cause of bug 10631. And, unfortunately, long term bug fix around template opEquals/opAssign/opCmp - e,g, fixing bug 3789, bug 4424, bug 3659, and others - had increased the criticalness of this issue. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
