digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 2702] New: Declaring struct, assigning rvalue via opAssign in same statement fails silently
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (27/27) Mar 01 2009 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2702
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (11/11) Aug 04 2009 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2702
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (41/41) Aug 07 2009 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2702
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (9/9) Aug 08 2009 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2702
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (8/8) Sep 07 2009 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2702
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (10/10) Sep 07 2009 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2702
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (11/11) Sep 24 2009 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2702
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (7/7) Sep 24 2009 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2702
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (36/36) Sep 25 2009 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2702
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (12/12) Oct 06 2009 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2702
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2702 Summary: Declaring struct, assigning rvalue via opAssign in same statement fails silently Product: D Version: 2.025 Platform: PC OS/Version: Windows Status: NEW Keywords: wrong-code Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: DMD AssignedTo: bugzilla digitalmars.com ReportedBy: dsimcha yahoo.com import std.stdio; struct Bar { uint num; Bar opAssign(uint otherNum) { num = otherNum; return this; } } void main() { Bar bar = 1; writeln(bar.num); // Prints 0. } --
Mar 01 2009
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2702 Don <clugdbug yahoo.com.au> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |clugdbug yahoo.com.au I think this is invalid. Bar bar=1; is a construction, not an assignment. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Aug 04 2009
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2702 Don <clugdbug yahoo.com.au> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |accepts-invalid, patch Version|2.025 |1.040 Summary|Declaring struct, assigning |Struct initialisation |rvalue via opAssign in same |silently inserts deadly |statement fails silently |casts Actually there is a bug: Bar bar = 1; should not be accepted. Here's a really frightening case: struct A { char [] a; } struct B { long x; } void main() { B s; A q = s; } -------------- The cause is in VarDeclaration::semantic in declaration.c, line 1083 (DMD 2.031), in the section dealing with initialisation of a struct. The code is: if (!ei->exp->implicitConvTo(type)) { Type *ti = ei->exp->type->toBasetype(); // Don't cast away invariant or mutability in initializer if (!(ti->ty == Tstruct && t->toDsymbol(sc) == ti->toDsymbol(sc))) { ei->exp = new CastExp(loc, ei->exp, type); } } and in D1, it's just (line 1074): if (!ei->exp->implicitConvTo(type)) ei->exp = new CastExp(loc, ei->exp, type); If it can't be implicitly converted to a struct, why the heck should an explicit cast be inserted??? PATCH(D1): Delete those 2 lines. On D2, we need the same logic as for assignment. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Aug 07 2009
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2702 I have confirmed that after completely removing that section of code, the DMD test suite still passes all tests. I tried to construct a valid case which required that code, but was unable to find one -- it looks as though that code is ONLY creating bugs. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Aug 08 2009
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2702 Don <clugdbug yahoo.com.au> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|normal |critical -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Sep 07 2009
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2702 Don <clugdbug yahoo.com.au> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |hskwk inter7.jp *** Issue 3259 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. *** -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Sep 07 2009
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2702 Don <clugdbug yahoo.com.au> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords|patch | There must have been something wrong with the way I tested this. It fails one of the test suite tests. Not yet patched. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Sep 24 2009
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2702 Hmm. It seems that code I commented out is used to invoke static opCall(). That seems very wrong to me, as it's allowing all sorts of other garbage to compile. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Sep 24 2009
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2702 Don <clugdbug yahoo.com.au> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |patch Here's a revised patch, same place (VarDeclaration::semantic in declaration.c, around line 1083). Replace the existing code with this version, which explicitly allows opCall and NOTHING ELSE: --- // Dynamic initialization uses static opCall. if (!ei->exp->implicitConvTo(type)) { // Look for opCall if (search_function(sd, Id::call)) { // Rewrite as e1.call(arguments) Expression * eCall = new DotIdExp(loc, e1, Id::call); ei->exp = new CallExp(loc, eCall, ei->exp); } } --- This passes everything in the DMD test suite, except for one line in one test (xtest46.d, test30) which I believe to be broken. I don't think that all of the opDot() and 'alias this' possibilities are tested in the test suite, however. Here's a tiny test which concisely tests the main features: struct A { char [] a; } struct B { long x; } struct C { int a; static C opCall(int b) { C q; q.a=b; return q; } } static assert(!is(typeof( (){ A s; B q = s; }))); static assert(!is(typeof( (){ B x =1L; }))); static assert(is(typeof( (){ C g = 7; }))); static assert(is(typeof( (){ C g = 7; C h = g;}))); -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Sep 25 2009
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2702 Walter Bright <bugzilla digitalmars.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC| |bugzilla digitalmars.com Resolution| |FIXED 02:15:10 PDT --- Fixed dmd 1.048 and 2.033 -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Oct 06 2009