www.digitalmars.com Home | Search | C & C++ | D | DMDScript | News Groups | index | prev | next
Archives
D Programming
D
D.gnu
digitalmars.D
digitalmars.D.bugs
digitalmars.D.dtl
digitalmars.D.dwt
digitalmars.D.announce
digitalmars.D.learn
digitalmars.D.debugger
C/C++ Programming
c++
c++.announce
c++.atl
c++.beta
c++.chat
c++.command-line
c++.dos
c++.dos.16-bits
c++.dos.32-bits
c++.idde
c++.mfc
c++.rtl
c++.stl
c++.stl.hp
c++.stl.port
c++.stl.sgi
c++.stlsoft
c++.windows
c++.windows.16-bits
c++.windows.32-bits
c++.wxwindows
digitalmars.empire
digitalmars.DMDScript

D.gnu - GDC specific bugs

↑ ↓ ← → "Thomas Kuehne" <thomas-dloop kuehne.cn> writes:
John Reimer schrieb:

 Thomas Kuehne wrote:

 http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/run/break_03.d
 http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/run/break_04.d
 http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/run/break_05.d
 http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/nocompile/command_line_deprecated_02.d
 http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/run/delegate_04.d
 http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/nocompile/delegate_05.d
 http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/run/delegate_12.d
 http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/run/enum_07.d
 http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/run/enum_08.d
 http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/run/enum_09.d
 http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/complex/linking/ (linking_01)
 http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/nocompile/static_08.d







 For the "enum" stress tests, I notice that a semicolon is used to end
 the enum declaration.  The D standard declares them without a semicolon
 appended.  Would removing the semicolon change the stress test results?



Thanks, I removed the semicolon. The change had no impact.

Thomas
Dec 12 2004
↑ ↓ ← → =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Thomas Kuehne wrote:


For the "enum" stress tests, I notice that a semicolon is used to end
the enum declaration.  The D standard declares them without a semicolon
appended.  Would removing the semicolon change the stress test results?



 Thanks, I removed the semicolon. The change had no impact.



If D had supported warnings, it would probably be appropriate
to issue one for extra semicolons after enum and class and such...
But since it doesn't, it's really not enough to trigger an error.

Maybe it (D) does need some kind of -pedantic flag, like GCC has ?
"verify program according to the standard and strict specification"
(do some "lint" checks that takes forever but sometimes catches bugs?)

--anders
Dec 12 2004
↑ ↓ ← → "Thomas Kuehne" <thomas-dloop kuehne.cn> writes:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Anders schrieb:

For the "enum" stress tests, I notice that a semicolon is used to end
the enum declaration.  The D standard declares them without a semicolon
appended.  Would removing the semicolon change the stress test results?



 Thanks, I removed the semicolon. The change had no impact.



 If D had supported warnings, it would probably be appropriate
 to issue one for extra semicolons after enum and class and such...
 But since it doesn't, it's really not enough to trigger an error.

 Maybe it (D) does need some kind of -pedantic flag, like GCC has ?
 "verify program according to the standard and strict specification"
 (do some "lint" checks that takes forever but sometimes catches bugs?)



http://digitalmars.com/d/statement.html#expression
# Expressions that have no affect, like (x + x), are illegal in expression
# statements.

"" (empty) has no affect, thus it's illegal.

Thomas

diff -ur dmd-109/dmd/src/dmd/parse.c neu/dmd/src/dmd/parse.c
- --- dmd-109/dmd/src/dmd/parse.c 2004-12-03 01:19:56.000000000 +0100
+++ neu/dmd/src/dmd/parse.c 2004-12-12 12:15:46.857412128 +0100
   -475,6 +475,7   
      }

      case TOKsemicolon:  // empty declaration
+      error("empty declaration in front of semicolon");
   nextToken();
   continue;

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFBvCzc3w+/yD4P9tIRAhoYAKCbExq/KOoPmFi7f3k+JRrBQV2etACZAQ6X
tew9aHPuIHwvu+5Sb0UYDFE=
=UsUD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dec 12 2004
↑ ↓ ← → =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Thomas Kuehne wrote:


 http://digitalmars.com/d/statement.html#expression
 # Expressions that have no affect, like (x + x), are illegal in expression
 # statements.
 
 "" (empty) has no affect, thus it's illegal.



True, then it *should* be made into an error after all...

Right now there seems to be NO such warnings implemented in GDC:


 void main()
 {
 };




 void main()
 {
   ;
 }




 void main()
 {
   null;
 }




 void main()
 {
   int x;
   (x + x);
 }



GCC says "warning: statement with no effect" for 3) and 4) above
(i.e. for the C versions of them, changed to "int main()") and for
1) "warning: ISO C does not allow extra `;' outside of a function"

Losing the extra semicolon after *some* declarations
is a Good Thing, even if it makes it C-incompatible ?
(a little like functions with no arguments, or casts)

--anders
Dec 12 2004
↑ ↓ ← → John Reimer <brk_6502 yahoo.com> writes:
Thomas Kuehne wrote:

 John Reimer schrieb:
 

Thomas Kuehne wrote:


http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/run/break_03.d
http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/run/break_04.d
http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/run/break_05.d
http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/nocompile/command_line_deprecated_02.d
http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/run/delegate_04.d
http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/nocompile/delegate_05.d
http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/run/delegate_12.d
http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/run/enum_07.d
http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/run/enum_08.d
http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/run/enum_09.d
http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/complex/linking/ (linking_01)
http://svn.kuehne.cn/dstress/nocompile/static_08.d






 

For the "enum" stress tests, I notice that a semicolon is used to end
the enum declaration.  The D standard declares them without a semicolon
appended.  Would removing the semicolon change the stress test results?



 
 Thanks, I removed the semicolon. The change had no impact.
 
 Thomas
 
 



Perhaps the semicolon is indeed optional.  I now see that the D language 
docs actual use a semicolon to end an enum in some examples, although it 
doesn't seem to appear in the actual enum definition portion of the 
docs.  I guess it's probably just one of those C carry-over features.

- John
Dec 12 2004
↑ ↓ ← → J C Calvarese <jcc7 cox.net> writes:
John Reimer wrote:

 Thomas Kuehne wrote:
 

 Thanks, I removed the semicolon. The change had no impact.

 Thomas



 Perhaps the semicolon is indeed optional.  I now see that the D language 
 docs actual use a semicolon to end an enum in some examples, although it 
 doesn't seem to appear in the actual enum definition portion of the 
 docs.  I guess it's probably just one of those C carry-over features.
 
 - John



As far as I can tell DMD doesn't care if you have empty statements (just 
as comments are ignored). I don't have a problem with that. If you're 
relying on ";" to do something, I don't think a warning or an error is 
going to help you much.

On the other hand, I understand why "int i; i;" should be disallowed. I 
can see all kinds of bugs that can be prevented by prohibiting that.

By the way, DMD compiles the following code without complaint:


;
;
;



enum
{
     item1,
     item2,
     item3
}


enum
{
     a,
     b,
     c
};


int main()
{
     ;
     ;
     return 1;

}


My two cents...

-- 
Justin (a/k/a jcc7)
http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/
Dec 13 2004
↑ ↓ ← → John Reimer <brk_6502 yahoo.com> writes:
Hello Justin,

Yeah... you are probably right.  D's flexibility with spurious 
semicolons is probably not something to lose sleep over. :-)

- John

J C Calvarese wrote:

 John Reimer wrote:
 

 Thomas Kuehne wrote:


 Thanks, I removed the semicolon. The change had no impact.

 Thomas



 Perhaps the semicolon is indeed optional.  I now see that the D 
 language docs actual use a semicolon to end an enum in some examples, 
 although it doesn't seem to appear in the actual enum definition 
 portion of the docs.  I guess it's probably just one of those C 
 carry-over features.

 - John



 
 As far as I can tell DMD doesn't care if you have empty statements (just 
 as comments are ignored). I don't have a problem with that. If you're 
 relying on ";" to do something, I don't think a warning or an error is 
 going to help you much.
 
 On the other hand, I understand why "int i; i;" should be disallowed. I 
 can see all kinds of bugs that can be prevented by prohibiting that.
 
 By the way, DMD compiles the following code without complaint:
 
 
 ;
 ;
 ;
 
 
 
 enum
 {
     item1,
     item2,
     item3
 }
 
 
 enum
 {
     a,
     b,
     c
 };
 
 
 int main()
 {
     ;
     ;
     return 1;
 
 }
 
 
 My two cents...
Dec 13 2004