• nobody <nobody mailinator.com> Feb 14 2007
• Frits van Bommel <fvbommel REMwOVExCAPSs.nl> Feb 14 2007
• nobody <nobody mailinator.com> Feb 14 2007

nobody <nobody mailinator.com> writes:

When I compile (v1.0) the following code for some reason opIndexDg's stack 
pointer is null and opIndexAssignDg's stack pointer is not.

----------------
   struct S
   {
     real delegate(size_t i, size_t j) opIndexDg;
     real delegate(real r, size_t i, size_t j) opIndexAssignDg;

     void dbg()
     {
       printf("&opIndexDg : [%X]\n", &opIndexDg );
       printf("     func -> [%X]\n", opIndexDg.funcptr );
       printf("    stack -> [%X]\n", opIndexDg.ptr );

       printf("&opIndexAssignDg : [%X]\n", &opIndexAssignDg );
       printf("           func -> [%X]\n", opIndexAssignDg.funcptr );
       printf("          stack -> [%X]\n", &opIndexAssignDg.ptr );
     }

   };


   int main(char[][] args)
   {
     S s;
     s.dbg();
     return 0;
   }
----------------

Output:

----------------

&opIndexDg : [12FF28]
      func -> [0]
     stack -> [0]
&opIndexAssignDg : [12FF30]
            func -> [0]
           stack -> [12FF30]

Frits van Bommel <fvbommel REMwOVExCAPSs.nl> writes:

nobody wrote:
 When I compile (v1.0) the following code for some reason opIndexDg's 
 stack pointer is null and opIndexAssignDg's stack pointer is not.
 
 ----------------


       printf("    stack -> [%X]\n", opIndexDg.ptr );


       printf("          stack -> [%X]\n", &opIndexAssignDg.ptr );



If you remove that it should also be null (it was for me).
The address you were printing was where the null pointer was stored, not 
the null pointer itself :P.

nobody <nobody mailinator.com> writes:

Frits van Bommel wrote:
 nobody wrote:
 When I compile (v1.0) the following code for some reason opIndexDg's 
 stack pointer is null and opIndexAssignDg's stack pointer is not.

 ----------------


       printf("    stack -> [%X]\n", opIndexDg.ptr );


       printf("          stack -> [%X]\n", &opIndexAssignDg.ptr );


 
 If you remove that it should also be null (it was for me).
 The address you were printing was where the null pointer was stored, not 
 the null pointer itself :P.


Thanks that certainly was just a typo on my part!