www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 12342] New: Deprecate not reachable code?

reply d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12342

           Summary: Deprecate not reachable code?
           Product: D
           Version: D2
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Keywords: diagnostic
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: nobody puremagic.com
        ReportedBy: bearophile_hugs eml.cc



int foo() {
    int x = 0;
    goto exit;
    if (true)
        x++;
    x = 20;
exit:
    return x;
}
void main() {}


dmd 2.066alpha gives:

test2.d(4,5): Warning: statement is not reachable
test2.d(6,5): Warning: statement is not reachable

Perhaps it's a good idea to turn such warnings into deprecation messages.


This deprecation avoids cases like a famous bug:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backdoor_%28computing%29


In late February 2014, Apple elliptically notified users of their OS of the
"goto fail" backdoor that was caused by an error. This error voids the SSL
authentication process, and exposes the user to a Man-in-the-middle
attack.[12][13][14] The "goto fail" bug is nicely diff-listed by Arthur in the
Guardian expose.[14]<


http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/25/apples-ssl-iphone-vulnerability-how-did-it-happen-and-what-next

-- 
Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Mar 10 2014
next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12342


yebblies <yebblies gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |yebblies gmail.com



The number of false positives puts this firmly in the warning/lint territory
IMO.  Unreachable code is highly common for me when writing and debugging.

-- 
Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Mar 10 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12342


Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jmdavisProg gmx.com



PDT ---

 The number of false positives puts this firmly in the warning/lint territory


IMO.  Unreachable code is highly common for me when writing and debugging.

Agreed.

-- 
Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Mar 10 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12342


Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |andrej.mitrovich gmail.com



05:09:46 PDT ---
Personally I find it extremely annoying when I get "unreachable" errors for
assert(0);. Sometimes I want to add it just to figure out whether execution has
reached some part of my code, e.g.:

-----
void function() fp1;
void function() fp2;

void main()
{
    fp1();

    assert(0);  // triggers warning

    fp2();
}
-----

Without the assert(0) I can't tell from the stack-trace at what point something
went wrong:

------
object.Error: Access Violation
------

With the assert injected, if it is reached I'll get back:

core.exception.AssertError test(8): Assertion failure

Which at least tells me the code before line 8 works ok.

-- 
Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Mar 11 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12342


bearophile_hugs eml.cc changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |INVALID






 Personally I find it extremely annoying when I get "unreachable" errors for
 assert(0);. Sometimes I want to add it just to figure out whether execution has
 reached some part of my code, e.g.:


I think you are using assert(0) for the wrong purposes, assert(0) is a code
flow tool, like break and continue, e and it's used to tell the compiler a
certain code branch can't be reached. Perhaps you have to throw a Error
instead.


Given the lack of love you show for this idea, I close down this ER as Invalid.

-- 
Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Mar 11 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12342




06:57:07 PDT ---


 I think you are using assert(0) for the wrong purposes, assert(0) is a code
 flow tool, like break and continue, e and it's used to tell the compiler a
 certain code branch can't be reached. Perhaps you have to throw a Error
 instead.


It's just a temporary use to find problems. Anywho the real problem is the
complete lack of stacktraces when a null function pointer is called. I'm not
sure whether this is filed.

-- 
Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Mar 11 2014
prev sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12342







 the real problem is the
 complete lack of stacktraces when a null function pointer is called. I'm not
 sure whether this is filed.


Null pointers in D are not protected by an assert. This is a design decision of
Walter that lot of people (me included) doesn't like.

-- 
Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Mar 11 2014