www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 2350] New: Contracts with a naked body are indecent

reply d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2350

           Summary: Contracts with a naked body are indecent
           Product: D
           Version: 1.034
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Windows
            Status: NEW
          Keywords: wrong-code
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P4
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: bugzilla digitalmars.com
        ReportedBy: clugdbug yahoo.com.au


It seems that in/out contracts assume that a stack frame has been set up. This
is not true for naked functions, so bad code is generated. Ideally, if the body
contains the keyword 'naked', in/out contracts should create and destroy a
stack frame.

----
void rude(int a)
in {
        assert(a==1);
}
body {
        asm { naked; }
}

void main() {
        rude(1);
}


-- 
Sep 09 2008
next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2350


Stewart Gordon <smjg iname.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |smjg iname.com


--- Comment #1 from Stewart Gordon <smjg iname.com> 2011-09-04 15:39:44 PDT ---
In which case, what would "naked" do?  If nothing, the compiler ought to
disallow it.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Sep 04 2011
prev sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2350



--- Comment #2 from Don <clugdbug yahoo.com.au> 2011-09-05 00:23:54 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
 In which case, what would "naked" do?  If nothing, the compiler ought to
 disallow it.
For non-naked functions, the contracts don't set up a stack frame, because the function already does it. The generated code is: push EBP; mov EBP, ESP; <run in contract> <run function body> <run out contract> pop EBP; If no contracts are present, or with -release, the generated code is currently: <run naked body> which is correct. But if contracts are present, and not in a release build, the code is: <run in contract> <run naked body> <run out contract> which causes a crash. Correct behaviour would be: push EBP; mov EBP, ESP; <run in contract> pop EBP; <run naked body> push EBP; mov EBP, ESP; <run out contract> pop EBP; -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Sep 05 2011