www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 4001] New: ctfe return value is handled incorrectly when used as template argument

reply d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4001

           Summary: ctfe return value is handled incorrectly when used as
                    template argument
           Product: D
           Version: 2.041
          Platform: x86
        OS/Version: Windows
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: nobody puremagic.com
        ReportedBy: jelszonak gmail.com


--- Comment #0 from Zólyomi István <jelszonak gmail.com> 2010-03-24 00:59:45
PDT ---
Note that the dmd version I was working with was 2.042, but it was still
unavailable in the version list. The reduced test case is the following:

import std.metastrings;

// dummy ctfe-capable function needed to reproduce the error
long parseLong(string timeStr) { return 42; }

// ctfe-capable function to demonstrate that a value is calculated in
compile-time
string longToStr(long val)
{
    if (val < 10) { return "" ~ cast(char)(val + '0'); }
    else { return longToStr(val / 10) ~ longToStr(val % 10); }
}

void main(string[] args)
{
    const long mylong = parseLong("mystring");
    pragma(msg, "fine ", longToStr(mylong) ); // compiles and prints
    pragma(msg, "bug? ", std.metastrings.toStringNow!(mylong) ); // error
}

For this code, the compiler output is

fine 42
bug? c:\Program Files\.....\src\phobos\std\metastrings.d(97): Error: expression
mylong < 0L is not constant or does not evaluate to a bool

I think this is a bug, toStringNow should work just as like longToStr. I
checked its source code, but found no reason for the compile error, it seems to
do the same thing with templates as longToStr with ctfe. The bug was confirmed
on the newsgroups, see thread starting with

http://digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=107973

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Mar 24 2010
next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4001


Don <clugdbug yahoo.com.au> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |clugdbug yahoo.com.au


--- Comment #1 from Don <clugdbug yahoo.com.au> 2010-03-24 01:28:46 PDT ---
This isn't actually a CTFE problem. The issue is that constant folding isn't
being performed on const variables with initializers. BTW in the original bug,
you can replace 'const' with 'enum' and it will work fine. Note that const
variables are NOT evaluated at compile time. But in these kind of situations,
it should do the same thing it does with a CTFE function call.

Reduced test case:
----
int space() { return 4001; }

void oddity4001()
{
    const int bowie = space();    
    static assert(space() == 4001); // OK
    static assert(bowie == 4001);   // doesn't compile
}

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Mar 24 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4001


Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy yahoo.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |schveiguy yahoo.com


--- Comment #2 from Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy yahoo.com> 2010-03-24
11:29:52 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
< Note that const
 variables are NOT evaluated at compile time. But in these kind of situations,
 it should do the same thing it does with a CTFE function call.
Then how does the first pragma work? It uses the same const variable that supposedly isn't evaluatable at compile time in the second pragma... -Steve -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Mar 24 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4001



--- Comment #3 from Don <clugdbug yahoo.com.au> 2010-03-24 11:58:27 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
 (In reply to comment #1)
 < Note that const
 variables are NOT evaluated at compile time. But in these kind of situations,
 it should do the same thing it does with a CTFE function call.
Then how does the first pragma work? It uses the same const variable that supposedly isn't evaluatable at compile time in the second pragma... -Steve
I didn't express that very clearly. Const variables are not evaluated at instantiation. It is permitted for a const variable to be determined at runtime. If a CTFE function call is made, all the arguments are interpreted before calling the function. In the test case, it only becomes a compile-time value while evaluating the pragma. (The pragma is forcing it to be a compile-time value). The bug is that this constant folding is not happening in template instantiations, static assert, static if, etc. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Mar 24 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4001


Don <clugdbug yahoo.com.au> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|ctfe return value is        |const variables should be
                   |handled incorrectly when    |readable inside CTFE
                   |used as template argument   |


--- Comment #4 from Don <clugdbug yahoo.com.au> 2011-04-26 21:10:03 PDT ---
Original title:
ctfe return value is handled incorrectly when used as template argument

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Apr 26 2011
prev sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4001


Walter Bright <bugzilla digitalmars.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |bugzilla digitalmars.com
         Resolution|                            |FIXED


--- Comment #5 from Walter Bright <bugzilla digitalmars.com> 2011-04-27
20:07:11 PDT ---
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/97c73b140f1cde5d0b713eb72fd1e82084a6ac11

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/13dcf90d934325b4f37c50679e07978a821c4249

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Apr 27 2011