www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 2819] New: array.sort segfaults if array length >=0x8F_FFFF

reply d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2819

           Summary: array.sort segfaults if array length >=0x8F_FFFF
           Product: D
           Version: 1.042
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Windows
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: Phobos
        AssignedTo: bugzilla digitalmars.com
        ReportedBy: clugdbug yahoo.com.au


void main() {
  auto a = new uint[0x8F_FFFF]; // smallest size that fails
  a.sort;
}

It's caused by the hard-coded
  byte*[40] stack;              // stack

in
extern (C) long _adSort(Array a, TypeInfo ti)
in qsort.d.

Affects both D1 and D2.
This is just another reason for the built-in .sort to be deprecated.


-- 
Apr 07 2009
next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2819


smjg iname.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |smjg iname.com
           Keywords|                            |wrong-code




------- Comment #1 from smjg iname.com  2009-04-07 14:20 -------
(In reply to comment #0)
 This is just another reason for the built-in .sort to be deprecated.

I don't understand. How is this bug a consequence of sort being built in? --
Apr 07 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2819





------- Comment #2 from clugdbug yahoo.com.au  2009-04-07 14:47 -------
(In reply to comment #1)
 (In reply to comment #0)
 This is just another reason for the built-in .sort to be deprecated.

I don't understand. How is this bug a consequence of sort being built in?

It isn't. But the fact that the built-in sort is buggy as well as slow and limited, further weakens its appeal. It just doesn't seem to have much going for it. --
Apr 07 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2819





------- Comment #3 from andrei metalanguage.com  2009-04-07 15:05 -------
(In reply to comment #2)
 (In reply to comment #1)
 (In reply to comment #0)
 This is just another reason for the built-in .sort to be deprecated.

I don't understand. How is this bug a consequence of sort being built in?

It isn't. But the fact that the built-in sort is buggy as well as slow and limited, further weakens its appeal. It just doesn't seem to have much going for it.

I agree. By the way, if anyone has run numbers on the relative speeds of various sort implementations, please share. --
Apr 07 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2819





------- Comment #4 from matti.niemenmaa+dbugzilla iki.fi  2009-04-07 15:17
-------
http://www.dsource.org/projects/tango/ticket/571 has some old numbers.


-- 
Apr 07 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2819





------- Comment #5 from smjg iname.com  2009-04-07 16:19 -------
(In reply to comment #3)
 I agree. By the way, if anyone has run numbers on the relative speeds of
 various sort implementations, please share.

What's a run number? Anyway, here's a program I wrote a while ago to benchmark sorting algorithms: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/announce/Sorting_algorithms_benchmark_7661.html http://pr.stewartsplace.org.uk/d/sortbench.d --
Apr 07 2009
prev sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2819


Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |andrej.mitrovich gmail.com


--- Comment #6 from Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> 2011-05-24
22:24:36 PDT ---
I can't recreate this bug on 2.053. If others can confirm, close this down I
guess.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
May 24 2011