www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 2559] New: enum doesn't work properly for invariant arrays

reply d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2559

           Summary: enum doesn't work properly for invariant arrays
           Product: D
           Version: 2.022
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Windows
            Status: NEW
          Keywords: wrong-code
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: bugzilla digitalmars.com
        ReportedBy: 2korden gmail.com


void foo(int offset)
{
    enum i1 = [1, 2, 3];
    invariant(int[]) i2 = [1, 2, 3];


    writefln(i1[offset]); // prints garbage
    writefln(i2[offset]); // prints valid value
}

foo(0);

Test run result:
-------
4315632
1


-- 
Jan 06 2009
next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2559


clugdbug yahoo.com.au changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|normal                      |blocker
           Keywords|                            |accepts-invalid
           Priority|P2                          |P1
            Summary|enum doesn't work properly  |bad code generation for enum
                   |for invariant arrays        |arrays




------- Comment #1 from clugdbug yahoo.com.au  2009-04-08 02:08 -------
I've changed the title, since I believe this bug is extremely serious.
Simpler example:
--------------
enum ubyte[4] a = [5,6,7,8];

void main()
{
  int x=3;
  assert(a[x]==7);
}
-----------
Interestingly, compiling with -O gives
bug.d(7): Error: variable a used before set

which shows that the initializer is being ignored.
My opinion is that that's correct -- the only reason you're using an enum is so
that it doesn't appear in the executable! Using a variable to index into the
enum is arguably equivalent to taking the address of the enum, and should
therefore be illegal -- use "immutable" instead.


-- 
Apr 08 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2559


clugdbug yahoo.com.au changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |gide nwawudu.com




------- Comment #2 from clugdbug yahoo.com.au  2009-04-08 02:09 -------
*** Bug 2792 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***


-- 
Apr 08 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2559





------- Comment #3 from clugdbug yahoo.com.au  2009-04-08 02:20 -------
Possible the same as bug 1884.


-- 
Apr 08 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2559


Don <clugdbug yahoo.com.au> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |clugdbug yahoo.com.au
           Severity|blocker                     |critical


-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Oct 27 2009
prev sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2559


Don <clugdbug yahoo.com.au> changed:

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


--- Comment #4 from Don <clugdbug yahoo.com.au> 2010-10-19 23:54:24 PDT ---
This was fixed in DMD2.031. The reduced test case was wrong! Should have been
int x=2;

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Oct 19 2010