www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - bitfields VS pure nothrow

reply Guillaume Chatelet <chatelet.guillaume gmail.com> writes:
Sure enough bitfields is a strange beast and I ran into some subtleties
with purity and nothrow.

Consider the following code :
------------------------------
struct POD {
   int a;
}

int getA(POD o) pure nothrow {
   return o.a;
}

POD setA(POD o, int value) pure nothrow {
   o.a = value;
   return o;
}
------------------------------

It compiles fine. But now with a bitfield :
struct POD {
	mixin(std.bitmanip.bitfields!(
        int, "a",10,
        int, "", 22));
}

The compiler complains about missing pure and nothrow attributes
Error: pure function 'getA' cannot call impure function 'a'
Error: o.a is not nothrow
Error: function test.getA 'getA' is nothrow yet may throw
Error: pure function 'setA' cannot call impure function 'a'
Error: o.a is not nothrow
Error: function test.setA 'setA' is nothrow yet may throw

Which makes sense as the mixin outputs :
------------------------------
 property uint a() const {
   auto result = (_a_ & 1023U) >>0U;
   return cast(uint) result;
}
 property void a(uint v){
   assert(v >= a_min);
   assert(v <= a_max);
   _a_ = cast(typeof(_a_))
         ((_a_ & ~1023U) | ((cast(typeof(_a_)) v << 0U) & 1023U));
}
enum uint a_min = cast(uint)0U;
enum uint a_max = cast(uint)1023U;
private uint _a_;
------------------------------

IMHO getters and setters could be nothrow but what about purity ? Looks
like it's a bit far-fetched to qualify member methods as pure right ?
Yet it makes sense regarding the semantic. What's your take on that ?
May 13 2012
next sibling parent "David Nadlinger" <see klickverbot.at> writes:
On Sunday, 13 May 2012 at 20:49:13 UTC, Guillaume Chatelet wrote:

 IMHO getters and setters could be nothrow but what about 
 purity? Looks
 like it's a bit far-fetched to qualify member methods as pure 
 right?
 Yet it makes sense regarding the semantic. What's your take on 
 that?


Yes, the getters and setters should be both pure and nothrow.

Your question about purity actually roots in a quite common
misunderstanding – I have a pretty comprehensive article on the
topic in the pipe, hope to be able to finish it later this week.

David
May 13 2012
prev sibling parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Alex_R=F8nne_Petersen?= <xtzgzorex gmail.com> writes:
On 13-05-2012 21:51, Guillaume Chatelet wrote:

 Sure enough bitfields is a strange beast and I ran into some subtleties
 with purity and nothrow.

 Consider the following code :
 ------------------------------
 struct POD {
     int a;
 }

 int getA(POD o) pure nothrow {
     return o.a;
 }

 POD setA(POD o, int value) pure nothrow {
     o.a = value;
     return o;
 }
 ------------------------------

 It compiles fine. But now with a bitfield :
 struct POD {
 	mixin(std.bitmanip.bitfields!(
          int, "a",10,
          int, "", 22));
 }

 The compiler complains about missing pure and nothrow attributes
 Error: pure function 'getA' cannot call impure function 'a'
 Error: o.a is not nothrow
 Error: function test.getA 'getA' is nothrow yet may throw
 Error: pure function 'setA' cannot call impure function 'a'
 Error: o.a is not nothrow
 Error: function test.setA 'setA' is nothrow yet may throw

 Which makes sense as the mixin outputs :
 ------------------------------
  property uint a() const {
     auto result = (_a_&  1023U)>>0U;
     return cast(uint) result;
 }
  property void a(uint v){
     assert(v>= a_min);
     assert(v<= a_max);
     _a_ = cast(typeof(_a_))
           ((_a_&  ~1023U) | ((cast(typeof(_a_)) v<<  0U)&  1023U));
 }
 enum uint a_min = cast(uint)0U;
 enum uint a_max = cast(uint)1023U;
 private uint _a_;
 ------------------------------

 IMHO getters and setters could be nothrow but what about purity ? Looks
 like it's a bit far-fetched to qualify member methods as pure right ?
 Yet it makes sense regarding the semantic. What's your take on that ?


I've sent a pull request that fixes this: 
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/583

-- 
- Alex
May 13 2012
parent Guillaume Chatelet <chatelet.guillaume gmail.com> writes:
On 05/13/12 23:01, David Nadlinger wrote:

 Yes, the getters and setters should be both pure and nothrow.
 
 Your question about purity actually roots in a quite common
 misunderstanding – I have a pretty comprehensive article on the
 topic in the pipe, hope to be able to finish it later this week.
 
 David


Looking forward to reading it.

On 05/13/12 23:19, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:

 I've sent a pull request that fixes this:
 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/583


Awesome. I was going to do so :)
May 13 2012