www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 1533] New: Crash unknown symbol with std.signals

reply d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1533

           Summary: Crash unknown symbol with std.signals
           Product: D
           Version: 2.004
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Windows
            Status: NEW
          Severity: critical
          Priority: P2
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: bugzilla digitalmars.com
        ReportedBy: regan netmail.co.nz


Crashes on compile:

import std.c.windows.windows; 
import std.signals;

class ChildProcesses
{
    void foobar()
    {
        void delegate(int) retCodeCall;
        PHandle p; 
        foo();  //trigger
        p.retCodeSignal.connect(retCodeCall); 
    }

    class PHandle
    {
        mixin Signal!(int) retCodeSignal;
    }
}

Compile with "dmd file.d".

Remove line marked trigger and there is no crash.


--
Sep 26 2007
next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1533


matti.niemenmaa+dbugzilla iki.fi changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |ice-on-invalid-code
            Version|2.004                       |1.021





-------
Confirmed on 1.021 as well. A shorter version:

import std.signals;

class ChildProcesses
{
    void foobar()
    {
        foo();  //trigger
        this.retCodeSignal;
    }

    mixin Signal!(int) retCodeSignal;
}


--
Sep 26 2007
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1533






The error message printed just before the compiler crashes is amusing:

sigbug.d(7): Error: undefined identifier foo
sigbug.d(7): Error: function expected before (), not foo of type int
sigbug.d(236): function sigbug.ChildProcesses.foobar.Signal!(int)._dtor
destruct
ors only are for class definitions


line 236.. of a 13 line program.

But should an ice-on-invalid really be marked Severity:critical?


--
Sep 26 2007
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1533


matti.niemenmaa+dbugzilla iki.fi changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|critical                    |major





-------


 The error message printed just before the compiler crashes is amusing:
 
 sigbug.d(7): Error: undefined identifier foo
 sigbug.d(7): Error: function expected before (), not foo of type int
 sigbug.d(236): function sigbug.ChildProcesses.foobar.Signal!(int)._dtor
 destruct
 ors only are for class definitions
 
 line 236.. of a 13 line program.


The mixin pulls in a bunch of stuff. DMD isn't smart enough to point to the
actual line where the code is, pointing only to the mixin-expanded code (which
you can't even ever see since there's nothing like C compilers' -E).


 But should an ice-on-invalid really be marked Severity:critical?


I don't think so. Changing to major.


--
Sep 26 2007
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1533


thomas-dloop kuehne.cn changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         OS/Version|Windows                     |All





The below condensed invalid code also triggers this ICE:
















Added to DStress as
http://dstress.kuehne.cn/run/t/this_16_A.d
http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/t/this_16_B.d
http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/t/this_16_C.d
http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/t/this_16_D.d


--
Sep 30 2007
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1533


clugdbug yahoo.com.au changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |patch





DMD2.028. func.c, line 954. Don't try to call the invariant if earlier errors
have meant we don't have a 'this'.

---------
            // Postcondition invariant
            if (addPostInvariant())
            {
                        if (!ad) return;   // <--- add this line
                Expression *e = NULL;
                if (isCtorDeclaration()){
                    // Call invariant directly only if it exists
--------


--
Apr 20 2009
prev sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1533


clugdbug yahoo.com.au changed:

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





Same as bug 642, case 14G.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 642 ***


--
Apr 20 2009