digitalmars.D - really stupid error
- d007 (11/11) Apr 01 2023 ```d
- Steven Schveighoffer (4/19) Apr 01 2023 Do you have a complete test case? If so, please file a bug report.
- user456 (4/24) Apr 01 2023 I have created this https://godbolt.org/z/ePxshnvvc but I dont
- user456 (3/14) Apr 01 2023 I can confirm, it's a regression from v1.30 to v1.31, reported
```d
printf("test(v[0]=%p, v[1]=%p, v[2]=%p)\n", &(arr[0][0]),
&(arr[0][1]), &(arr[0][2]));
ubyte RR = 0;
printf("test(v[0]=%p, v[1]=%p, v[2]=%p)\n", &(arr[RR][0]),
&(arr[RR][1]), &(arr[RR][2]));
```
first line you get the write output, 3 diff value.
the seconds line you get 3 same value. change `ubyte RR = 0` into
`emum RR = 0` fix the problem.
test with ldc2 1.32.0
Apr 01 2023
On 4/1/23 5:37 AM, d007 wrote:
```d
printf("test(v[0]=%p, v[1]=%p, v[2]=%p)\n", &(arr[0][0]), &(arr[0][1]),
&(arr[0][2]));
ubyte RR = 0;
printf("test(v[0]=%p, v[1]=%p, v[2]=%p)\n", &(arr[RR][0]),
&(arr[RR][1]), &(arr[RR][2]));
```
first line you get the write output, 3 diff value.
the seconds line you get 3 same value. change `ubyte RR = 0` into `emum
RR = 0` fix the problem.
test with ldc2 1.32.0
Do you have a complete test case? If so, please file a bug report.
https://issues.dlang.org
-Steve
Apr 01 2023
On Saturday, 1 April 2023 at 18:18:21 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:On 4/1/23 5:37 AM, d007 wrote:I have created this https://godbolt.org/z/ePxshnvvc but I dont know if DMD is affected. That seems to be a bug specific to LDC.```d printf("test(v[0]=%p, v[1]=%p, v[2]=%p)\n", &(arr[0][0]), &(arr[0][1]), &(arr[0][2])); ubyte RR = 0; printf("test(v[0]=%p, v[1]=%p, v[2]=%p)\n", &(arr[RR][0]), &(arr[RR][1]), &(arr[RR][2])); ``` first line you get the write output, 3 diff value. the seconds line you get 3 same value. change `ubyte RR = 0` into `emum RR = 0` fix the problem. test with ldc2 1.32.0Do you have a complete test case? If so, please file a bug report. https://issues.dlang.org -Steve
Apr 01 2023
On Saturday, 1 April 2023 at 18:41:26 UTC, user456 wrote:I have created this https://godbolt.org/z/ePxshnvvc but I dont know if DMD is affected. That seems to be a bug specific to LDC.Thanks. `thewilsonator` from github suggestion turn on `opaque pointers`, it cause ldc crashed: ```sh 0 ldc2 0x0000000108e41b37 llvm::sys::PrintStackTrace(llvm::raw_ostream&, int) + 39 1 ldc2 0x0000000108e409e6 llvm::sys::RunSignalHandlers() + 198 2 ldc2 0x0000000108e42190 SignalHandler(int) + 288 3 libsystem_platform.dylib 0x00007ff80ae11c1d _sigtramp + 29 4 libsystem_platform.dylib 0x0000000000000008 _sigtramp + 18446603370398409736 5 ldc2 0x00000001086f9592 (anonymous namespace)::AccessAnalysis::createCheckForAccess(llvm::RuntimePointerChecking&, llvm::PointerIntPair<llvm::Value*, 1u, bool, llvm::PointerLikeTypeTraits<llvm::Value*>, llvm::PointerIntPairInfo<llvm::Value*, 1u, llvm::PointerLikeTypeTraits<llvm::Value*> > >, llvm::DenseMap<llvm::Value const*, llvm::Value*, llvm::DenseMapInfo<llvm::Value const*, void>, llvm::detail::DenseMapPair<llvm::Value const*, llvm::Value*> > const&, llvm::DenseMap<llvm::Value*, unsigned int, llvm::DenseMapInfo<llvm::Value*, void>, llvm::detail::DenseMapPair<llvm::Value*, unsigned int> >&, llvm::Loop*, unsigned int&, unsigned int, bool, bool) + 642 6 ldc2 0x00000001086f7063 (anonymous namespace)::AccessAnalysis::canCheckPtrAtRT(llvm::RuntimePointerChecking&, llvm::ScalarEvolution*, llvm::Loop*, llvm::DenseMap<llvm::Value const*, llvm::Value*, llvm::DenseMapInfo<llvm::Value const*, void>, llvm::detail::DenseMapPair<llvm::Value const*, llvm::Value*> > const&, bool) + 867 7 ldc2 0x00000001086f65df llvm::LoopAccessInfo::analyzeLoop(llvm::AAResults*, llvm::LoopInfo*, llvm::TargetLibraryInfo const*, llvm::DominatorTree*) + 6287 8 ldc2 0x00000001086f86be llvm::LoopAccessAnalysis::run(llvm::Loop&, llvm::AnalysisManager<llvm::Loop, llvm::LoopStandardAnalysisResults&>&, llvm::LoopStandardAnalysisResults&) + 46 9 ldc2 0x000000010732ebd8 llvm::detail::AnalysisPassModel<llvm::Loop, llvm::LoopAccessAnalysis, llvm::PreservedAnalyses, llvm::AnalysisManager<llvm::Loop, llvm::LoopStandardAnalysisResults&>::Invalidator, llvm::LoopStandardAnalysisResults&>::run(llvm::Loop&, llvm::AnalysisManager<llvm::Loop, llvm::LoopStandardAnalysisResults&>&, llvm::LoopStandardAnalysisResults&) + 40 10 ldc2 0x00000001086fd0d2 llvm::AnalysisManager<llvm::Loop, llvm::LoopStandardAnalysisResults&>::getResultImpl(llvm::AnalysisKey*, llvm::Loop&, llvm::LoopStandardAnalysisResults&) + 722 11 ldc2 0x00000001081e2015 llvm::LoopAccessInfo const& llvm::function_ref<llvm::LoopAccessInfo const& (llvm::Loop&)>::callback_fn<llvm::LoopLoadEliminationPass::run(llvm::Function&, llvm::AnalysisManager<llvm::Function>&)::$_0>(long, llvm::Loop&) + 101 12 ldc2 0x00000001081df0ec eliminateLoadsAcrossLoops(llvm::Function&, llvm::LoopInfo&, llvm::DominatorTree&, llvm::BlockFrequencyInfo*, llvm::ProfileSummaryInfo*, llvm::ScalarEvolution*, llvm::AssumptionCache*, llvm::function_ref<llvm::LoopAccessInfo const& (llvm::Loop&)>) + 1452 13 ldc2 0x00000001081dea29 llvm::LoopLoadEliminationPass::run(llvm::Function&, llvm::AnalysisManager<llvm::Function>&) + 569 14 ldc2 0x0000000107347f72 llvm::detail::PassModel<llvm::Function, llvm::LoopLoadEliminationPass, llvm::PreservedAnalyses, llvm::AnalysisManager<llvm::Function> >::run(llvm::Function&, llvm::AnalysisManager<llvm::Function>&) + 18 15 ldc2 0x0000000108ba00a8 llvm::PassManager<llvm::Function, llvm::AnalysisManager<llvm::Function> >::run(llvm::Function&, llvm::AnalysisManager<llvm::Function>&) + 392 16 ldc2 0x00000001070eb512 llvm::detail::PassModel<llvm::Function, llvm::PassManager<llvm::Function, llvm::AnalysisManager<llvm::Function> >, llvm::PreservedAnalyses, llvm::AnalysisManager<llvm::Function> >::run(llvm::Function&, llvm::AnalysisManager<llvm::Function>&) + 18 17 ldc2 0x0000000108ba40af llvm::ModuleToFunctionPassAdaptor::run(llvm::Module&, llvm::AnalysisManager<llvm::Module>&) + 447 18 ldc2 0x00000001070eb312 llvm::detail::PassModel<llvm::Module, llvm::ModuleToFunctionPassAdaptor, llvm::PreservedAnalyses, llvm::AnalysisManager<llvm::Module> >::run(llvm::Module&, llvm::AnalysisManager<llvm::Module>&) + 18 19 ldc2 0x0000000108b9eb89 llvm::PassManager<llvm::Module, llvm::AnalysisManager<llvm::Module> >::run(llvm::Module&, llvm::AnalysisManager<llvm::Module>&) + 441 20 ldc2 0x00000001092a4442 writeModule(llvm::Module*, char const*) + 8418 21 ldc2 0x000000010929f1e0 ldc::CodeGenerator::writeAndFreeLLModule(char const*) + 1360 22 ldc2 0x00000001092bc58f codegenModules(Array<Module*>&) + 7631 23 ldc2 0x00000001091c6540 mars_mainBody(Param&, Array<char const*>&, Array<char const*>&) + 5136 ```
Apr 13 2023
On Friday, 14 April 2023 at 05:58:16 UTC, d007 wrote:On Saturday, 1 April 2023 at 18:41:26 UTC, user456 wrote:Yeah I've discovered to my great surprise the other day that opaque pointers are not enabled yet but optionally supported. By coincidence at the same time I was just celebrating the transition to opaque pointers of [another compiler](https://gitlab.com/styx-lang/styx/-/releases/v0.10.0)... For LDC this is more complicated because (I believe) the LLVM IR is generated from another intermediate IR so the relationship with the original AST is not so obvious. Anyway, no matter if the reg was caused by the initial support for opque ptrs, LLVM GEPs were generally more simple with typed pointers.I have created this https://godbolt.org/z/ePxshnvvc but I dont know if DMD is affected. That seems to be a bug specific to LDC.Thanks. `thewilsonator` from github suggestion turn on `opaque pointers`, it cause ldc crashed:
Apr 14 2023
Johan <j j.nl> On Friday, 14 April 2023 at 07:22:13 UTC, Basile B. wrote:On Friday, 14 April 2023 at 05:58:16 UTC, d007 wrote:The problem was caused by invalid AST coming from the frontend (https://godbolt.org/z/ae7G8hccz). Martin has changed LDC such that it can deal with such invalid AST here: https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/pull/4365 -JohanOn Saturday, 1 April 2023 at 18:41:26 UTC, user456 wrote:Yeah I've discovered to my great surprise the other day that opaque pointers are not enabled yet but optionally supported. By coincidence at the same time I was just celebrating the transition to opaque pointers of [another compiler](https://gitlab.com/styx-lang/styx/-/releases/v0.10.0)... For LDC this is more complicated because (I believe) the LLVM IR is generated from another intermediate IR so the relationship with the original AST is not so obvious. Anyway, no matter if the reg was caused by the initial support for opque ptrs, LLVM GEPs were generally more simple with typed pointers.I have created this https://godbolt.org/z/ePxshnvvc but I dont know if DMD is affected. That seems to be a bug specific to LDC.Thanks. `thewilsonator` from github suggestion turn on `opaque pointers`, it cause ldc crashed:
Apr 14 2023
On Saturday, 1 April 2023 at 09:37:49 UTC, d007 wrote:
```d
printf("test(v[0]=%p, v[1]=%p, v[2]=%p)\n", &(arr[0][0]),
&(arr[0][1]), &(arr[0][2]));
ubyte RR = 0;
printf("test(v[0]=%p, v[1]=%p, v[2]=%p)\n", &(arr[RR][0]),
&(arr[RR][1]), &(arr[RR][2]));
```
first line you get the write output, 3 diff value.
the seconds line you get 3 same value. change `ubyte RR = 0`
into `emum RR = 0` fix the problem.
test with ldc2 1.32.0
I can confirm, it's a regression from v1.30 to v1.31, reported
here https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/issues/4362.
Apr 01 2023