www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 7169] New: [CTFE] Assertion failure with inner struct

reply d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7169

           Summary: [CTFE] Assertion failure with inner struct
           Product: D
           Version: D2
          Platform: x86
        OS/Version: Windows
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: nobody puremagic.com
        ReportedBy: youxkei gmail.com



---
struct Struct(T){
    T t;
}

void func(T)(T t){
    Struct!T s;
    s.t = t;
}

static assert({
    struct InnerStruct{
        void func(){}
    }
    func(InnerStruct());
    return true;
}());

void main(){}


This code doesn't work.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Dec 27 2011
next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7169


Don <clugdbug yahoo.com.au> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |ice-on-invalid-code
                 CC|                            |clugdbug yahoo.com.au



According to the spec, I don't think this is supposed to work.
expression.html says:
----
Nested structs cannot be used as fields or as the element type of an array:

void foo() {
  int i = 7;
  struct SS {
    int x,y;
    int bar() { return x + i + 1; }
  }
  struct DD {
    SS s;  // error, cannot be field
  }
}
----
So creating such a struct by passing the nested struct as a template parameter
shouldn't work either. But, the compiler accepts the examples that the spec
says are errors. So I'm not sure if the bug is in the spec or the compiler.


The ICE is a variation of bug 6419, but where the nested struct is part of a
struct literal. Here's a test case with the same ICE, but this time where it's
part of an array.

void func2(T)(T t){
    T[2] s;
    s[0] = t;
}

static assert({
    struct InnerStruct{
        void func(){}
    }
    func2(InnerStruct());
    return true;
}());

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jan 01 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7169




22:53:15 PDT ---

 struct Struct(T){
     T t;
 }
 
 void func(T)(T t){
     Struct!T s;
     s.t = t;
 }
 
 static assert({
     struct InnerStruct{
         void func(){}
     }
     func(InnerStruct());
     return true;
 }());
 
 void main(){}
 
 
 This code doesn't work.
It produces a correct error message: test.d(6): Error: delegate test.__lambda4 is a nested function and cannot be accessed from test.func!(InnerStruct).func -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Oct 05 2013
prev sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7169


Walter Bright <bugzilla digitalmars.com> changed:

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



22:55:34 PDT ---

 According to the spec, I don't think this is supposed to work.
It's not.
 void func2(T)(T t){
     T[2] s;
     s[0] = t;
 }
 
 static assert({
     struct InnerStruct{
         void func(){}
     }
     func2(InnerStruct());
     return true;
 }());
This also produces a correct error message: test.d(2): Error: cannot access frame pointer of test.__lambda3.InnerStruct test.d(10): Error: template instance test.func2!(InnerStruct) error instantiating Not an ICE. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Oct 05 2013