www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.learn - 'static' keyword for positional array initialization

reply Ali Cehreli <acehreli yahoo.com> writes:
The 'static' keyword is required by dmd 2.031 for the second of these two
definitions:

  int[2] static_0 = [ 1, 1 ];
  static int[2] static_1 = [ 1:1 ];

Is this inconsistency by design? Should 'static' be required for both or
neither?

Ali
Aug 11 2009
parent reply "Lars T. Kyllingstad" <public kyllingen.NOSPAMnet> writes:
Ali Cehreli wrote:

 The 'static' keyword is required by dmd 2.031 for the second of these two
definitions:
 
   int[2] static_0 = [ 1, 1 ];
   static int[2] static_1 = [ 1:1 ];
 
 Is this inconsistency by design? Should 'static' be required for both or
neither?
 
 Ali
 



I've tried with DMD 2.031, and I can't reproduce this. This works fine 
for me:

   int[2] static_0 = [ 1, 1 ]:
   int[2] static_1 = [ 1:1 ];

Where did you put the declarations? I've tried putting them at both 
module level and in a class, and both times it compiled without problems.

-Lars
Aug 12 2009
parent reply Ali Cehreli <acehreli yahoo.com> writes:
Lars T. Kyllingstad Wrote:


 I've tried with DMD 2.031, and I can't reproduce this. This works fine 
 for me:
 
    int[2] static_0 = [ 1, 1 ]:
    int[2] static_1 = [ 1:1 ];
 
 Where did you put the declarations? I've tried putting them at both 
 module level and in a class, and both times it compiled without problems.


Thank you very much for both of your answers. :)

I hadn't realized that the location of the definitions would make a difference.
As you say, both of the lines work for me in the global scope (probably in a
class too), but not in main:

void main()
{
    int[2] static_0 = [ 1, 1 ];
    int[2] static_1 = [ 1:1 ];
}

dmd: init.c:431: virtual Expression* ArrayInitializer::toExpression():
Assertion `j < edim' failed.

The 'static' keyword on the 1:1 line fixes the problem...

I am wondering what the correct syntax is... I am writing a D tutorial, so I
think I ought to know. :D If this is a bug, I can leave a temporary note
mentioning the bug... :)

Ali
Aug 12 2009
next sibling parent "Lars T. Kyllingstad" <public kyllingen.NOSPAMnet> writes:
Ali Cehreli wrote:

 Lars T. Kyllingstad Wrote:
 

 I've tried with DMD 2.031, and I can't reproduce this. This works fine 
 for me:

    int[2] static_0 = [ 1, 1 ]:
    int[2] static_1 = [ 1:1 ];

 Where did you put the declarations? I've tried putting them at both 
 module level and in a class, and both times it compiled without problems.


 
 Thank you very much for both of your answers. :)
 
 I hadn't realized that the location of the definitions would make a
difference. As you say, both of the lines work for me in the global scope
(probably in a class too), but not in main:
 
 void main()
 {
     int[2] static_0 = [ 1, 1 ];
     int[2] static_1 = [ 1:1 ];
 }
 
 dmd: init.c:431: virtual Expression* ArrayInitializer::toExpression():
Assertion `j < edim' failed.
 
 The 'static' keyword on the 1:1 line fixes the problem...
 
 I am wondering what the correct syntax is... I am writing a D tutorial, so I
think I ought to know. :D If this is a bug, I can leave a temporary note
mentioning the bug... :)
 
 Ali



The error message shows that this is definitely a compiler bug. Would 
you mind adding it to Bugzilla?

   http://d.puremagic.com/issues/

-Lars
Aug 12 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent grauzone <none example.net> writes:
Ali Cehreli wrote:

 Lars T. Kyllingstad Wrote:
 

 I've tried with DMD 2.031, and I can't reproduce this. This works fine 
 for me:

    int[2] static_0 = [ 1, 1 ]:
    int[2] static_1 = [ 1:1 ];

 Where did you put the declarations? I've tried putting them at both 
 module level and in a class, and both times it compiled without problems.


 
 Thank you very much for both of your answers. :)
 
 I hadn't realized that the location of the definitions would make a
difference. As you say, both of the lines work for me in the global scope
(probably in a class too), but not in main:
 
 void main()
 {
     int[2] static_0 = [ 1, 1 ];
     int[2] static_1 = [ 1:1 ];
 }
 
 dmd: init.c:431: virtual Expression* ArrayInitializer::toExpression():
Assertion `j < edim' failed.
 
 The 'static' keyword on the 1:1 line fixes the problem...


The error message is a compiler bug, but AFAIK the code above is not 
valid anyway. The special initializer syntax (apparently called static 
inittializers) for arrays and structs only works for data that's stored 
on the data segment. This applies for global variables, static 
variables, and class member initializers.

It simply doesn't work for normal variables, which allocate their 
storage on the stack.
Aug 12 2009
prev sibling parent reply Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:
Ali Cehreli wrote:

 Lars T. Kyllingstad Wrote:
 

 I've tried with DMD 2.031, and I can't reproduce this. This works fine 
 for me:

    int[2] static_0 = [ 1, 1 ]:
    int[2] static_1 = [ 1:1 ];

 Where did you put the declarations? I've tried putting them at both 
 module level and in a class, and both times it compiled without problems.


 
 Thank you very much for both of your answers. :)
 
 I hadn't realized that the location of the definitions would make a
difference. As you say, both of the lines work for me in the global scope
(probably in a class too), but not in main:
 
 void main()
 {
     int[2] static_0 = [ 1, 1 ];
     int[2] static_1 = [ 1:1 ];
 }
 
 dmd: init.c:431: virtual Expression* ArrayInitializer::toExpression():
Assertion `j < edim' failed.


I've added this to Bugzilla as bug 3246. With a patch <g>.
Aug 12 2009
parent reply Ali Cehreli <acehreli yahoo.com> writes:
Don Wrote:


 void main()
 {
     int[2] static_0 = [ 1, 1 ];
     int[2] static_1 = [ 1:1 ];
 }
 
 dmd: init.c:431: virtual Expression* ArrayInitializer::toExpression():
Assertion `j < edim' failed.


 
 I've added this to Bugzilla as bug 3246. With a patch <g>.


Thank you for the quick fix! :)

But I still can't parse the answer that I am looking for. :)

The compiler should pass the assertion, ok, but what should itdo after that?

a) Reject both
b) Accept both
c) Accept static_0 but reject static_1

Option c would contradict with the documentattion though:

  http://digitalmars.com/d/2.0/arrays.html

It says: "Static arrays are distinguished by having a length fixed at compile
time."

Also says: "Static Initialization of Static Arrays: Static initalizations are
supplied by a list of array element values enclosed in [ ]. The values can be
optionally preceded by an index and a :."

Those definitions make me think that both static_0 and static_1 should both be
accepted.

Thank you,
Ali
Aug 12 2009
parent Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:
Ali Cehreli wrote:

 Don Wrote:
 

 void main()
 {
     int[2] static_0 = [ 1, 1 ];
     int[2] static_1 = [ 1:1 ];
 }

 dmd: init.c:431: virtual Expression* ArrayInitializer::toExpression():
Assertion `j < edim' failed.


 I've added this to Bugzilla as bug 3246. With a patch <g>.


 
 Thank you for the quick fix! :)
 
 But I still can't parse the answer that I am looking for. :)
 
 The compiler should pass the assertion, ok, but what should itdo after that?
 
 a) Reject both
 b) Accept both
 c) Accept static_0 but reject static_1
 
 Option c would contradict with the documentattion though:
 
   http://digitalmars.com/d/2.0/arrays.html
 
 It says: "Static arrays are distinguished by having a length fixed at compile
time."


'static' means two different things. There, it means 'fixed length'.
It can also mean 'in the static data segment' which is quite different.
This terminology causes a lot of confusion.

 
 Also says: "Static Initialization of Static Arrays: Static initalizations are
supplied by a list of array element values enclosed in [ ]. The values can be
optionally preceded by an index and a :."
 
 Those definitions make me think that both static_0 and static_1 should both be
accepted.


Definitely they should, eventually. But right now, the compiler 
generates really terrible code for array assignments anyway, so you're 
not losing much.
Aug 12 2009