digitalmars.D - Is this a bug?
- Robert Clipsham (35/35) Apr 20 2012 I've been staring blankly at this for a while now and want some input
- Steven Schveighoffer (14/41) Apr 20 2012 Also note that assert(0), which is what that line reduces to, is *not*
I've been staring blankly at this for a while now and want some input
from others:
----
void foo(T, U...)(bool arg)
{
if (arg)
{
assert(T.tupleof.length == U.length);
assert(arg); /* Line 6 */
// Or some other code here
}
}
struct A {}
void main()
{
foo!(A, int)(false);
}
----
When compiled with warnings:
$ dmd -w test.d
test.d(6): Warning: statement is not reachable
So what appears to be happening here is that dmd is constant folding
T.tupleof.length == U.length to false, then assert(arg) can never
happen, so the warning is given.
It is obvious, however, that the assertion will never be executed
anyway. Has anyone else run into this situation? The compile time
parameters only need to match based on the runtime value provided (other
branches in the code don't have such strict requirements for the compile
time parameters).
Is there some way around this? (other than compiling without -w)
I can't help but feel what I'm doing isn't right some how.
Apologies if this makes no sense, I'm rather tired.
--
Robert
http://octarineparrot.com/
Apr 20 2012
On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 15:21:12 -0400, Robert Clipsham <robert octarineparrot.com> wrote:I've been staring blankly at this for a while now and want some input from others: ---- void foo(T, U...)(bool arg) { if (arg) { assert(T.tupleof.length == U.length); assert(arg); /* Line 6 */ // Or some other code here } } struct A {} void main() { foo!(A, int)(false); } ---- When compiled with warnings: $ dmd -w test.d test.d(6): Warning: statement is not reachable So what appears to be happening here is that dmd is constant folding T.tupleof.length == U.length to false, then assert(arg) can never happen, so the warning is given.Also note that assert(0), which is what that line reduces to, is *not* removed for release builds.It is obvious, however, that the assertion will never be executed anyway.No it isn't. this: foo!(A, int)(true); compiles to the same exact template function instantiation. arg is a runtime parameter, not determinable at compile-time, and therefore the compiler must include the branch.Is there some way around this? (other than compiling without -w) I can't help but feel what I'm doing isn't right some how.Use static assert/static if when you expect something that is determined at compile time to be a certain way. Not only will it be more efficient code, but if it's *not* compile-time determined, you will get an error from the compiler. -Steve
Apr 20 2012








"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com>