[Issue 2678] for loops are already assumed to terminate
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2678 Andrei Alexandrescu changed: What|Removed |Added Version|unspecified |D2 --
[Issue 2678] for loops are already assumed to terminate
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2678 bugzi...@digitalmars.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED --- Comment #7 from bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2009-03-11 14:54 --- Fixed dmd 1.041 and 2.026 --
[Issue 2678] for loops are already assumed to terminate
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2678 s...@iname.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||s...@iname.com --- Comment #6 from s...@iname.com 2009-03-06 14:56 --- That should equally generate an unreachable code warning. --
[Issue 2678] for loops are already assumed to terminate
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2678 --- Comment #5 from bary...@smp.if.uj.edu.pl 2009-03-05 16:56 --- How about assert(0); at the end? --
[Issue 2678] for loops are already assumed to terminate
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2678
--- Comment #4 from clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2009-03-03 07:49 ---
This also applies to:
while(1) {...}
But I notice that Walter's already fixed that .
--
[Issue 2678] for loops are already assumed to terminate
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2678 --- Comment #3 from and...@metalanguage.com 2009-02-20 11:27 --- (In reply to comment #2) > You would also need to take into account try/catch blocks. This doesn't > actually invalidate the assertion (you still can't fall out of the loop), it > just forces you to be more careful how you read it (you /can/ end up running > the next line of code after the loop if it is in a catch block) > Yah, and goto is to be handled as well. I'm just saying the loop will never naturally fall off its end. --
[Issue 2678] for loops are already assumed to terminate
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2678 --- Comment #2 from shro8...@vandals.uidaho.edu 2009-02-20 10:52 --- You would also need to take into account try/catch blocks. This doesn't actually invalidate the assertion (you still can't fall out of the loop), it just forces you to be more careful how you read it (you /can/ end up running the next line of code after the loop if it is in a catch block) --
[Issue 2678] for loops are already assumed to terminate
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2678 --- Comment #1 from and...@metalanguage.com 2009-02-20 09:17 --- > Before anyone brings up Turing completeness: I said "nonzero > compile-time-constant termination condition". s/Turing completeness/Turing's machine halting problem/ --
