digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 2816] New: Sudden-death static assert is not very useful
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (27/27) Apr 07 2009 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2816
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (7/7) Apr 07 2009 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2816
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (15/21) Apr 07 2009 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2816
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (11/11) Apr 07 2009 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2816
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (5/9) Apr 07 2009 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2816
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (13/13) Apr 07 2009 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2816
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (11/11) Apr 08 2009 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2816
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (6/6) Apr 09 2009 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2816
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (11/11) Apr 09 2009 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2816
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (30/30) Apr 09 2009 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2816
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (8/10) Apr 09 2009 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2816
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (9/9) Apr 18 2009 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2816
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (10/10) Dec 15 2009 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2816
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (6/6) Dec 31 2009 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2816
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (9/9) Jan 03 2010 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2816
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2816 Summary: Sudden-death static assert is not very useful Product: D Version: 1.042 Platform: PC OS/Version: Windows Status: NEW Keywords: patch Severity: enhancement Priority: P2 Component: DMD AssignedTo: bugzilla digitalmars.com ReportedBy: clugdbug yahoo.com.au http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=77 However, they make static assert rather useless, since it gives you absolutely no context. To make it useful again, In staticassert.c, line 68 (in DMD2.027): error("is false"); if (!global.gag) fatal(); --- change this to: error("(%s) is false", exp->toChars()); --- (ie, remove the global.gag test). --
Apr 07 2009
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2816 The static assert does give you file/line, so it does give context. But I'll add the expression print, too. But I think static assert errors should be fatal. They usually involve misconfigured code, it is pointless to continue. --
Apr 07 2009
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2816 clugdbug yahoo.com.au changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords|patch |The static assert does give you file/line, so it does give context. But I'll add the expression print, too. But I think static assert errors should be fatal. They usually involve misconfigured code, it is pointless to continue.Yes, there will not be any more meaningful errors. But you still need a back trace. If the static assert occurs in (say) a library template, knowing that it happened in std.functional at line 92 doesn't help very much -- you want to know where the problem is in _your_ code. (That's a real example, BTW). Actually, I'll have another try, and see if I can create a backtrace, and THEN make it a fatal error. So I'm retracting this patch. --
Apr 07 2009
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2816 kamm-removethis incasoftware.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |patch ------- Don, LDC already implemented template instantiation traces. Check StaticAssert::semantic2 and TemplateInstance::printInstantiationTrace. I emailed Walter about them at the time. If desired, I can provide a patch against DMD. --
Apr 07 2009
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2816Don, LDC already implemented template instantiation traces. Check StaticAssert::semantic2 and TemplateInstance::printInstantiationTrace. I emailed Walter about them at the time. If desired, I can provide a patch against DMD.That'd be great! --
Apr 07 2009
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2816 For that matter, if template errors could all be given optional (some flag?) stack traces (not just chained errors) that would be cool. I'm thinking somthing like: template error foo bla bla bla. invoked at file.d:7235 from TBar invoked at file.d:752 from TBaz invoked at code.d:7235 from Bling ... maybe (another flag?) some formatted printing of the args to (limited to 80 columns) --
Apr 07 2009
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2816 ------- Created an attachment (id=318) --> (http://d.puremagic.com/issues/attachment.cgi?id=318&action=view) template instantiation trace patch patch against DMD 1.043, superficially tested Note that this originated as a hack and might have been possible without adding tinst to Scope and TemplateInstance. There were discussions about including only certain template instantiations in such a trace: http://www.mail-archive.com/digitalmars-d puremagic.com/msg03614.html --
Apr 08 2009
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2816 Christian -- Thanks, this is fantastic! I've modified it so that it detects recursive template instantiations -- this dramatically reduces the size of the trace. A patch will follow shortly. --
Apr 09 2009
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2816 Created an attachment (id=319) --> (http://d.puremagic.com/issues/attachment.cgi?id=319&action=view) patch for dmd2.028 I've adjusted the backtrace in two ways: (1) displays line numbers in what I believe is a more IDE-friendly manner; (2) detects recursive template instantiations and collapses them into a single line. I've made no changes other than to the InstantiationTrace function. --
Apr 09 2009
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2816 Error messages generated from my patch for the code below: bug.d(2): Error: static assert (0) is false bug.d(9): instantiatied from here: bar!() bug.d(14): 100 recursive instantiations from here: foo!(196) bug.d(19): 253 recursive instantiations from here: baz!(300) (Oops -- just realised I there's a typo in "instantiated" in the non-recursive messages. That's easy to fix). Note that it detects the recursive instantiation in foo!(), even though it is instantiated from three different places. -------- template bar() { static assert(0); } template foo(int N) { static if (N>0) { static if (N&1) alias foo!(N-3) foo; else alias foo!(N-1) foo; } else alias bar!() foo; } template baz(int M) { static if (M<50) { alias foo!(M*4) baz; } else alias baz!(M-1) baz; } void main() { int x = baz!(300); } --
Apr 09 2009
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2816Note that it detects the recursive instantiation in foo!(), even though it is instantiated from three different places.it would be nice to have (maybe as an "even more verbose" option) a breakdown of recursive invocations: bug.d(14): 100 recursive instantiations from here: foo!(196) [50 at bug.d(7), 50 at bug.d(8)] --
Apr 09 2009
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2816 Found another bug in this patch. Should start the count from 0, not 1. Otherwise you can get a segfault when the out-by-1 error shows up in the "only show first and last iterations" case. in TemplateInstance::printInstantiationTrace() // determine instantiation depth and number of recursive instantiations int n_instantiations = 0; --
Apr 18 2009
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2816 Leandro Lucarella <llucax gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |llucax gmail.com PST --- http://www.dsource.org/projects/dmd/changeset/294 -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Dec 15 2009
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2816 11:11:36 PST --- Fixed dmd 1.054 and 2.038 -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Dec 31 2009
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2816 Don <clugdbug yahoo.com.au> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jan 03 2010