www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 4436] New: Double bug regarding Tuple.init

reply d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4436

           Summary: Double bug regarding Tuple.init
           Product: D
           Version: D2
          Platform: Other
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: nobody puremagic.com
        ReportedBy: andrei metalanguage.com



13:39:18 PDT ---
Consider:

import std.stdio, std.typecons;

struct S
{
    this(this) { writeln("making a copy"); }
}

void main() {
    Tuple!(S, int) x;
    auto p1 = &(x.init);
    //auto p2 = &(Tuple!(S, int).init);
}

The program as is calls the copy constructor of S twice. It should call none
(for at least two reasons: effciency and the fact that some types want to
disable copying).

Furthermore, uncommenting the last line in main yields a compile-time error. It
should compile and run (again without invoking the copy constructor).

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jul 07 2010
next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4436






 Consider:
 
 import std.stdio, std.typecons;
 
 struct S
 {
     this(this) { writeln("making a copy"); }
 }
 
 void main() {
     Tuple!(S, int) x;
     auto p1 = &(x.init);
     //auto p2 = &(Tuple!(S, int).init);
 }
 
 The program as is calls the copy constructor of S twice. It should call none
 (for at least two reasons: effciency and the fact that some types want to
 disable copying).
 
 Furthermore, uncommenting the last line in main yields a compile-time error. It
 should compile and run (again without invoking the copy constructor).


From 2.059, T.init always returns rvalue even if T is struct.
So getting address of init property by & operator is rejected in compile.

I think this issue should be closed with the status "resolved invalid".

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
May 30 2012
prev sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4436


Kenji Hara <k.hara.pg gmail.com> changed:

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





 I think this issue should be closed with the status "resolved invalid".


The explained behavior was actually a bug, so it didn't invalid.
I'll mark this "fixed".

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
May 26 2013