www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 2380] New: static struct initializer accepted as non static initializer

reply d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2380

           Summary: static struct initializer accepted as non static
                    initializer
           Product: D
           Version: 1.034
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Keywords: accepts-invalid
          Severity: major
          Priority: P2
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: bugzilla digitalmars.com
        ReportedBy: tomas famolsen.dk


D has different syntax for static struct initializers and struct literals.
several threads on the NG has been about this and there are enhancement
requests on this tracker as well...

dmd currently accepts the invalid code:

module structinitbug;
struct S {
        void* ptr;
}
void main() {
        S s = {null};
}

it seems that there are several issues surrounding initializers lately...

I found this due to it actually being used in Tango (xml.Document) and LLVMDC
not handling it properly.


-- 
Sep 30 2008
next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2380


bugzilla digitalmars.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |INVALID




------- Comment #1 from bugzilla digitalmars.com  2008-10-02 04:02 -------
Static initializers are allowed for initializing non-statics. It is not a bug.


-- 
Oct 02 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2380


tomas famolsen.dk changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
           Keywords|accepts-invalid             |spec
         Resolution|INVALID                     |




------- Comment #2 from tomas famolsen.dk  2008-10-02 05:08 -------
It's not documented though, reopening as a spec bug


-- 
Oct 02 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2380





------- Comment #3 from kamm-removethis incasoftware.de  2008-10-02 11:05
-------
What I found surprising was that you can use static initializers to initialize
non-statics with non-static data. This passes on DMD and LLVMDC:

class C
{
  struct S {
    C ptr;
  }

  S foo() {
    S loc = {this};
    return loc;
  }
}

void main()
{
  auto c = new C;
  assert(c.foo().ptr is c);
}


-- 
Oct 02 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2380





------- Comment #4 from samukha voliacable.com  2008-10-03 02:47 -------
What's more surprising is that not all static initializers are allowed to
initialize non-statics:

int[] a = [1, 2, 3]; // ok. 
int[] b = [1 : 2, 3]; // fails. only static arrays can be initialized like this

Though it seems to be according to the specs, I don't see the reason why
initializers with indexes are special cased.

And this one may be considered a bug:
void foo()
{
  int[3] a = [ 1:2, 3 ]; // fails. static static arrays, only:
  static int[3] a = [ 1:2, 3 ]; // ok
}


-- 
Oct 03 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2380


bugzilla digitalmars.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|REOPENED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |INVALID




------- Comment #5 from bugzilla digitalmars.com  2008-10-03 03:39 -------
I agree it's an inconsistent design, but it is not a bug. Static initializer
syntax is different. You can enter an enhancement request to change the design.


-- 
Oct 03 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2380


tomas famolsen.dk changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|INVALID                     |
            Summary|static struct initializer   |static struct initializer
                   |accepted as non static      |accepted as non static
                   |initializer                 |initializer is not
                   |                            |documented




------- Comment #6 from tomas famolsen.dk  2008-10-03 04:23 -------
but it's still not documented !!! reopening, changing the description a bit.
the spec should mention that this is allowed..


-- 
Oct 03 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2380





------- Comment #7 from tomas famolsen.dk  2008-10-03 04:53 -------
also the point that Christian mentions, that the initializer need not be static
is especially surprising given no documentation.


-- 
Oct 03 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2380





------- Comment #8 from bugzilla digitalmars.com  2008-10-03 14:57 -------
Ok :-)


-- 
Oct 03 2008
prev sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2380


bugzilla digitalmars.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|REOPENED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED




------- Comment #9 from bugzilla digitalmars.com  2008-10-20 22:19 -------
Fixed dmd 1.036 and 2.020


-- 
Oct 20 2008