digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 5080] New: breaking const-correctness with class/interface
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (42/42) Oct 19 2010 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5080
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (7/7) Oct 19 2010 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5080
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (12/12) Oct 19 2010 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5080
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (29/29) Oct 19 2010 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5080
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (30/30) Oct 19 2010 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5080
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (7/7) Oct 19 2010 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5080
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (11/32) Jan 07 2011 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5080
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (11/11) Feb 06 2011 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5080
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (17/17) Feb 09 2011 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5080
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (16/29) Feb 09 2011 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5080
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (12/12) Jan 30 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5080
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5080
Summary: breaking const-correctness with class/interface
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: x86_64
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: DMD
AssignedTo: nobody puremagic.com
ReportedBy: k.hara.pg gmail.com
Result of attached test code is follows:
----
part1 ----
true, false, false, false, false
true, true, false, false, true
false, false, true, true, false
false, false, true, true, false
false, false, false, false, true
part2 ----
true, false, false, false, false
true, true, false, false, true
false, false, true, true, false
false, false, true, true, false
false, false, false, false, true
part3 ----
true, true, true, true, true
true, true, true, true, true
true, true, true, true, true
true, true, true, true, true
true, true, true, true, true
----
I discovered two issues.
Part 1 & 2:
Shared const should not be implicitly convertible to shared, is it?
Part 3:
All of them are completely broken.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Oct 19 2010
d-bugmail puremagic.com http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5080 Created an attachment (id=786) test code -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Oct 19 2010
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5080
bearophile_hugs eml.cc changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |bearophile_hugs eml.cc
By the way, you have just shown the right way to design (or test) a language:
you need to test all the items in the matrix/tensor of all possible
combinations. One of the the inventor of Java did the same.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Oct 19 2010
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5080
This code should not work.
----
interface I
{
void set(int v);
}
class A : I
{
this(int v){val = v;}
int val = 10;
override void set(int v){val = v;}
}
void change(I i)
{
i.set(100);
}
void main()
{
auto a = new immutable(A)(10);
assert(a.val == 10);
change(a); // immutable(A) is converted to (mutable) I.
assert(a.val == 100); // breaking const-correctness!
}
----
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Oct 19 2010
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5080 Created an attachment (id=787) test code(fixed) test code fixed. I withdraw part 1 and 2. test code result is follows: ---- part1 ---- true, false, false, false, false true, true, false, false, true false, false, true, false, false false, false, true, true, true false, false, false, false, true part2 ---- true, false, false, false, false true, true, false, false, true false, false, true, false, false false, false, true, true, true false, false, false, false, true part3 ---- true, true, true, true, true true, true, true, true, true true, true, true, true, true true, true, true, true, true true, true, true, true, true ---- -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Oct 19 2010
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5080 Created an attachment (id=788) Patch for DMD svn r716 -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Oct 19 2010
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5080
Tomasz Sowiński <tomeksowi gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |tomeksowi gmail.com
PST ---
interface I
{
void set(int v);
}
class A : I
{
this(int v){val = v;}
int val = 10;
override void set(int v){val = v;}
}
void change(I i)
{
i.set(100);
}
void main()
{
auto a = new immutable(A)(10);
assert(a.val == 10);
change(a); // immutable(A) is converted to (mutable) I.
assert(a.val == 100); // breaking const-correctness!
}
Looks like duplicate of bug 3731 (read Steven's comment).
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jan 07 2011
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5080
Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Platform|x86_64 |x86
---
Mass migration of bugs marked as x86-64 to just x86. The platform run on isn't
what's relevant, it's if the app is a 32 or 64 bit app.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Feb 06 2011
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5080
The patch causes this code to fail to compile:
----
class S { }
void main()
{
S s1 = new S;
const S s2 = new S;
assert(s1!=s2);
}
---
Even so, I think the patch is probably correct -- it's a problem with opEquals.
But this means that more work is required before this patch could be applied.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Feb 09 2011
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5080
Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy yahoo.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |schveiguy yahoo.com
10:18:44 PST ---
The patch causes this code to fail to compile:
----
class S { }
void main()
{
S s1 = new S;
const S s2 = new S;
assert(s1!=s2);
}
---
Even so, I think the patch is probably correct -- it's a problem with opEquals.
But this means that more work is required before this patch could be applied.
That code should fail to compile on the current compiler without patches,
because the prototype for opEquals for objects is:
bool opEquals(Object lhs, Object rhs);
Clearly, this should not accept any const objects. Because opEquals is special
somehow, the compiler rams it through.
So yeah, that code is not indicative of the patch being bad.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Feb 09 2011
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5080
yebblies <yebblies gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC| |yebblies gmail.com
Resolution| |DUPLICATE
*** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of issue 3731 ***
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jan 30 2012