digitalmars.D.bugs - wchar assignments
- Thomas Kuehne (5/5) Nov 17 2004 Constant assignments to wchar allow values greater than wchar.max.
- Thomas Kuehne (5/9) Nov 17 2004 dchar has the same problems.
- Walter (5/15) Nov 19 2004 I don't believe this is a bug. It is analogous to:
- Thomas Kuehne (25/39) Nov 19 2004 Can you please comment on following findings?
- Walter (3/45) Nov 21 2004 I obviously need to clean this up.
- =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= (4/9) Nov 21 2004 gdc 0.8 doesn't like that code:
Constant assignments to wchar allow values greater than wchar.max. http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/nocompile/wchar_04.d Constant assignments to wchar allow values smaller than wchar.min. http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/nocompile/wchar_06.d Thomas
Nov 17 2004
Thomas Kuehne schrieb am Wed, 17 Nov 2004 09:45:12 +0100:Constant assignments to wchar allow values greater than wchar.max. http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/nocompile/wchar_04.d Constant assignments to wchar allow values smaller than wchar.min. http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/nocompile/wchar_06.ddchar has the same problems. http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/nocompile/dchar_04.d http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/nocompile/dchar_06.d Thomas
Nov 17 2004
I don't believe this is a bug. It is analogous to:
byte b = 1000;
which is allowed as well.
"Thomas Kuehne" <thomas-dloop kuehne.thisisspam.cn> wrote in message
news:n9ur62-jt9.ln1 kuehne.cn...
Thomas Kuehne schrieb am Wed, 17 Nov 2004 09:45:12 +0100:
Constant assignments to wchar allow values greater than wchar.max.
http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/nocompile/wchar_04.d
Constant assignments to wchar allow values smaller than wchar.min.
http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/nocompile/wchar_06.d
dchar has the same problems.
http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/nocompile/dchar_04.d
http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/nocompile/dchar_06.d
Thomas
Nov 19 2004
Can you please comment on following findings?
fail:
short A = 32768; // short.max+1
byte B = 128; // byte.max+1
char C = 256; // char.max+1
pass:
short a = -32769; // short.min-1
byte b = -129; // byte.min-1
char c = -1; // char.min-1
wchar D = 655536; // wchar.max+1
wchar d = -1; // wchar.min-1
dchar E = 1114112; // dchar.max+1
dchar e = -1; // dchar.min-1
The only documentation I found for this was "lex.html".
In fact some funny consequences occur. According to the integer
resolution table "-1" is not considered to be an integer literal
- e.g. ints have a range from 0 to int.max. This explains why no lower
borders are checked. But why are the upper borders of short, byte and
char checked where as neither (d/w)char's upper nor lower border is
checked?
Just for clarification: I am only talking about constant assignments
known at compile time, not about any overflow issues during the
execution.
Thomas
Walter schrieb am Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:18:28 -0800:
I don't believe this is a bug. It is analogous to:
byte b = 1000;
which is allowed as well.
Thomas Kuehne schrieb am Wed, 17 Nov 2004 09:45:12 +0100:
Constant assignments to wchar allow values greater than wchar.max.
http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/nocompile/wchar_04.d
Constant assignments to wchar allow values smaller than wchar.min.
http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/nocompile/wchar_06.d
dchar has the same problems.
http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/nocompile/dchar_04.d
http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/nocompile/dchar_06.d
Nov 19 2004
"Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> I obviously need to clean this up. "Thomas Kuehne" <thomas-dloop kuehne.thisisspam.cn> wrote in message news:rra272-427.ln1 kuehne.cn...Can you please comment on following findings? fail: short A = 32768; // short.max+1 byte B = 128; // byte.max+1 char C = 256; // char.max+1 pass: short a = -32769; // short.min-1 byte b = -129; // byte.min-1 char c = -1; // char.min-1 wchar D = 655536; // wchar.max+1 wchar d = -1; // wchar.min-1 dchar E = 1114112; // dchar.max+1 dchar e = -1; // dchar.min-1 The only documentation I found for this was "lex.html". In fact some funny consequences occur. According to the integer resolution table "-1" is not considered to be an integer literal - e.g. ints have a range from 0 to int.max. This explains why no lower borders are checked. But why are the upper borders of short, byte and char checked where as neither (d/w)char's upper nor lower border is checked? Just for clarification: I am only talking about constant assignments known at compile time, not about any overflow issues during the execution. Thomas Walter schrieb am Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:18:28 -0800:I don't believe this is a bug. It is analogous to: byte b = 1000; which is allowed as well.Thomas Kuehne schrieb am Wed, 17 Nov 2004 09:45:12 +0100:Constant assignments to wchar allow values greater than wchar.max. http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/nocompile/wchar_04.d Constant assignments to wchar allow values smaller than wchar.min. http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/nocompile/wchar_06.ddchar has the same problems. http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/nocompile/dchar_04.d http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/nocompile/dchar_06.d
Nov 21 2004
Walter wrote:
I don't believe this is a bug. It is analogous to:
byte b = 1000;
which is allowed as well.
gdc 0.8 doesn't like that code:
"cannot implicitly convert expression 1000 of type int to byte"
--anders
Nov 21 2004