[Issue 12606] Mismatch of known array length during dynamic = static array assignment should emit better diagnostics
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12606 --- Comment #7 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/3b74627a464197f526e6b3a9a54334e3ced60fc8 fix Issue 12606 - Mismatch of known array length during dynamic = static array assignment should emit better diagnostics Recognize slice expression on initializer and rhs of assignment https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/3a50fa40059ae790f783a691b13d4217cf4ac861 Merge pull request #3485 from 9rnsr/fix12606 Issue 12606 - Mismatch of known array length during dynamic = static array assignment should emit better diagnostics --
[Issue 12606] Mismatch of known array length during dynamic = static array assignment should emit better diagnostics
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12606 github-bugzi...@puremagic.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --
[Issue 12606] Mismatch of known array length during dynamic = static array assignment should emit better diagnostics
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12606 Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Mismatch of array length|Mismatch of known array |during assignment should|length during dynamic = |emit better diagnostics |static array assignment ||should emit better ||diagnostics --
[Issue 12606] Mismatch of known array length during dynamic = static array assignment should emit better diagnostics
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12606
Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@puremagic.com|andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com ---
Simplified test-case:
-
uint[2] arr1 = [1, 2, 3][0 .. 2];
uint[2] arr2 = [1, 2, 3][0 .. 3];
void main() { }
-
--
[Issue 12606] Mismatch of known array length during dynamic = static array assignment should emit better diagnostics
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12606 Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com |nob...@puremagic.com --
[Issue 12606] Mismatch of known array length during dynamic = static array assignment should emit better diagnostics
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12606
Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||k.hara...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com ---
Kenji:
The way I see it, we need some way of returning back information on why some
implicit conversion didn't work.
For example, in 'implicitConvTo' in the visitor functions 'result' is simply
initialized to MATCHnomatch if the dimensions of the two slices don't match.
But this isn't propagate back to the caller side.
We could vastly improve diagnostics for type mismatches, length mismatches,
template instance failures, if we had a way of return back information.
I think one way we could do it is to turn the MATCH enum into a struct, which
internally holds more state. For example:
struct MATCH
{
/// equivalent to what MATCH was before: MATCHnomatch, MATCHconvert...
MATCHLevel level;
/// call this to emit informative diagnostic
const char*(*error_fp)();
}
In internal matching routines the code could do (sorry this is a bit mixed-C/D
code syntax):
-
if (e-elements-dim != tsa-dim-toInteger())
{
result = MATCH(MATCHnomatch,
{ return format(Array length mismatch: %s %s, e-elements-dim,
tsa-dim-toInteger()); }
}
-
So the idea is the routine initializes a pointer, and then the call site can
decide whether to call it to extract a diagnostic, or whether to ignore it. For
example the 'resolveFuncCall' function typically walks through several template
instances before it decides on emitting diagnostics, so having a lazy way of
extracting a diagnostic is cruical.
On the call site (e.g. 'resolveFuncCall') the code could look like:
-
if (matchresult.level == MATCHnomatch)
{
error(Failed to match: %s, matchresult.error_fp());
}
-
What do you think about this design? I'm not sure whether we can create
delegates in C++ like we can in D though, I'm not too familiar with what's
supported there.
--
[Issue 12606] Mismatch of known array length during dynamic = static array assignment should emit better diagnostics
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12606 --- Comment #3 from Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Andrej Mitrovic from comment #2) But this isn't propagate back to the caller side. propagated* --
[Issue 12606] Mismatch of known array length during dynamic = static array assignment should emit better diagnostics
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12606 --- Comment #4 from Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Andrej Mitrovic from comment #2) So the idea is the routine initializes a pointer *A function pointer (well, a delegate in this case) --
[Issue 12606] Mismatch of known array length during dynamic = static array assignment should emit better diagnostics
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12606 Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||pull --- Comment #5 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com --- https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/3485 --
[Issue 12606] Mismatch of known array length during dynamic = static array assignment should emit better diagnostics
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12606
--- Comment #6 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Andrej Mitrovic from comment #2)
For example, in 'implicitConvTo' in the visitor functions 'result' is simply
initialized to MATCHnomatch if the dimensions of the two slices don't match.
But this isn't propagate back to the caller side.
If e-implicitConvTo(t) returns MATCHnomatch, e-implicitCastTo(sc, t) should
cause error which represents why e does not match to t.
So, the following compiler code form would be sufficient.
e = e-implicitCastTo(sc, t);
or:
if (e-implicitConvTo(t))
{
e = e-implicitCastTo(sc, t);
assert(e-op != TOKerror); // always succeeds
}
else
{
// extra handling for the unmatch, if e and t have known forms.
if (...)
{
error(more better diagnostic for particular case);
e = new ErrorExp();
}
// error report for generic case
// (if e is already an ErrorExp, no redundant error generated)
e = e-implicitCastTo(sc, t);
}
--
