• kdevel (33/33) May 05 ```d
• monkyyy (44/45) May 05 even worse:
• Steven Schveighoffer (3/11) May 05 This is a bug, please report it.
• kdevel (3/13) May 06 I would like to yield to someone with a GH account.
• kdevel (5/19) May 12 When I put `shared` in front of that definition the unittest

kdevel <kdevel vogtner.de> writes:

```d
//
// bs3.d
// 2025-05-05 stvo
//
// $ dmd -g -checkaction=context -unittest -main -run bs3.d
// bs3.d(25): [unittest] [4, 3, 3, 4] != [4, 3, 2, 1]
// 1/1 modules FAILED unittests
//

auto foo (ubyte [4] s)
{
    auto u = s;
    ubyte [4] tmp = u;
    u[0] = tmp [3];
    u[1] = tmp [2];
    u[2] = tmp [1];
    u[3] = tmp [0];
    return u;
}

unittest {
    enum ubyte [4] u = [1,2,3,4];
    enum r = foo (u);
    auto s = foo (u);
    assert (r == s);
}
```

According to the spec [1] the above code conforms to the CTFE 
restrictions and contains no pointers. It also does not contain 
"implementation defined behavior". Thus the result of CTFE and 
RTFE should be identical but they differ.

Suggestions appreciated!

[1] https://dlang.org/spec/function.html#interpretation
     20.22 Compile Time Function Execution (CTFE)

monkyyy <crazymonkyyy gmail.com> writes:

On Monday, 5 May 2025 at 17:15:57 UTC, kdevel wrote:
 

even worse:
```d
auto foo(ubyte[4] s){
     ubyte[] u = s;
     ubyte[4] tmp = u;
     u[0] = tmp[3];
     u[3] = tmp[0];
     return u;
}

unittest{
     import std;

     enum ubyte[4] u = [1, 2, 3, 4];
     enum r = foo(u);
     auto s = foo(u);
     r.writeln;
     s.writeln;
     assert(r!=s);
}
```


```
            2.105.3: Success with output:
-----
1 modules passed unittests
[1, 2, 3, 4]
[4, 2, 3, 1]
[216, 88, 171, 59]
-----

            2.106.1: Success with output:
-----
1 modules passed unittests
[1, 2, 3, 4]
[4, 2, 3, 1]
[136, 48, 143, 115]
-----

Since      2.107.0: Success with output:
-----
1 modules passed unittests
[1, 2, 3, 4]
[4, 2, 3, 1]
[56, 227, 42, 198]
-----
```

what fun

Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy gmail.com> writes:

On Monday, 5 May 2025 at 17:15:57 UTC, kdevel wrote:
 ```d
 //
 // bs3.d
 // 2025-05-05 stvo
 //
 // $ dmd -g -checkaction=context -unittest -main -run bs3.d
 // bs3.d(25): [unittest] [4, 3, 3, 4] != [4, 3, 2, 1]
 ```

This is a bug, please report it.

-Steve

kdevel <kdevel vogtner.de> writes:

On Tuesday, 6 May 2025 at 01:29:35 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:
 On Monday, 5 May 2025 at 17:15:57 UTC, kdevel wrote:
 ```d
 //
 // bs3.d
 // 2025-05-05 stvo
 //
 // $ dmd -g -checkaction=context -unittest -main -run bs3.d
 // bs3.d(25): [unittest] [4, 3, 3, 4] != [4, 3, 2, 1]
 ```

 This is a bug, please report it.

I would like to yield to someone with a GH account.

kdevel <kdevel vogtner.de> writes:

On Monday, 5 May 2025 at 17:15:57 UTC, kdevel wrote:
 ```
 auto foo (ubyte [4] s)
 {
    auto u = s;
    ubyte [4] tmp = u;
 ```

When I put `shared` in front of that definition the unittest 
passes.

 ```
    u[0] = tmp [3];
    u[1] = tmp [2];
    u[2] = tmp [1];
    u[3] = tmp [0];
    return u;
 }
 ```

I appreciate if sb. with a GH account could file the issue with 
the original code as bug.