www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.learn - Assertion failure: '!cases' on line 2620 in file 'statement.c'

reply %u <e ee.com> writes:
Assertion failure: '!cases' on line 2620 in file 'statement.c'

This is what I got from trying to build my project(30+ modules) without bud.
Jan 12 2011
parent reply %u <e ee.com> writes:
Should I post it as a bug, even though I have no code to accompany it?
I have no clue as to where to start my directed search for a minimal case.
Jan 12 2011
next sibling parent "Simen kjaeraas" <simen.kjaras gmail.com> writes:
%u <e ee.com> wrote:


 Should I post it as a bug, even though I have no code to accompany it?
 I have no clue as to where to start my directed search for a minimal  
 case.



Please do post it, yes. As for searching, if you are willing to share
the code , others may be willing to do the search.

-- 
Simen
Jan 12 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:
%u wrote:

 Should I post it as a bug, even though I have no code to accompany it?
 I have no clue as to where to start my directed search for a minimal case.



Can you post the entire source code?
It's important that it be reproducible. It doesn't need to be minimal - 
someone else can reduce it.
Jan 12 2011
parent reply %u <e ee.com> writes:
== Quote from Don (nospam nospam.com)'s article

 %u wrote:

 Should I post it as a bug, even though I have no code to accompany it?
 I have no clue as to where to start my directed search for a minimal case.



 It's important that it be reproducible. It doesn't need to be minimal -
 someone else can reduce it.



I crashed it again :)

Sorry, can't share the code..

I don't really have any time atm, look at it again tomorrow.
Jan 12 2011
parent reply Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:
%u wrote:

 == Quote from Don (nospam nospam.com)'s article

 %u wrote:

 Should I post it as a bug, even though I have no code to accompany it?
 I have no clue as to where to start my directed search for a minimal case.



 It's important that it be reproducible. It doesn't need to be minimal -
 someone else can reduce it.



 I crashed it again :)
 
 Sorry, can't share the code..



Bummer.


 I don't really have any time atm, look at it again tomorrow.



It's in a switch statement somewhere.
It sounds as though this is a bug which involves multiple files, so 
it'll be difficult to reduce it.

If you're able to compile DMD, change this line in statement.c line 2620:

Statement *SwitchStatement::semantic(Scope *sc)
{
     //printf("SwitchStatement::semantic(%p)\n", this);
     tf = sc->tf;
+   if (cases) error("xxx");
     assert(!cases);             // ensure semantic() is only run once


and then you'll get the line number where the error is.
If you can provide the function which contains the switch statement, 
there's a chance I could reproduce it.
Jan 13 2011
parent reply %u <e ee.com> writes:
== Quote from Don (nospam nospam.com)'s article

 It's in a switch statement somewhere.
 It sounds as though this is a bug which involves multiple files, so
 it'll be difficult to reduce it.
 If you're able to compile DMD, change this line in statement.c line 2620:
 Statement *SwitchStatement::semantic(Scope *sc)
 {
      //printf("SwitchStatement::semantic(%p)\n", this);
      tf = sc->tf;
 +   if (cases) error("xxx");
      assert(!cases);             // ensure semantic() is only run once
 and then you'll get the line number where the error is.



Yay for first time compiling dmd :)


 If you can provide the function which contains the switch statement,
 there's a chance I could reproduce it.



I've got something better.. a minimal version :)
Which even crashes through bud.

----
module main;

enum E { A = 0 };

struct S{
  int i;

  static S func( S s, E e ){
    switch( e ) //<---------- here
    {
      default:return s;
    }
  }

  static const S s_def = { 1 };
  //static const S A = func(s_def, E.A ); // forward reference error + crash
  //static const S[1] ARR = [ E.A : func(s_def, E.A )]; // error : xxx + crash
}

void main(){}
----
To test all this I switched from 1.065 to 1.066; just to make sure it hadn't
been
fixed already.
And now my project won't compile any more even though bud+1.065 will happily do
so..
bud+ 1.066 gives me the following (no crash though)

Max # of fixups = 89
Max # of fixups = 4
Max # of fixups = 112
Max # of fixups = 17
Max # of fixups = 2871
Max # of fixups = 233
Max # of fixups = 138
Max # of fixups = 7
Max # of fixups = 353
Max # of fixups = 446
Max # of fixups = 5
Max # of fixups = 4117
Max # of fixups = 37
Max # of fixups = 288
Max # of fixups = 330
Max # of fixups = 338
Max # of fixups = 144
Max # of fixups = 660
Max # of fixups = 51
Max # of fixups = 4
Max # of fixups = 220
Max # of fixups = 2765
Max # of fixups = 12
Max # of fixups = 5
Max # of fixups = 5564
Max # of fixups = 2714
Internal error: backend\cgobj.c 2424

What does that mean?
Jan 13 2011
parent reply Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:
%u wrote:

 == Quote from Don (nospam nospam.com)'s article

 It's in a switch statement somewhere.
 It sounds as though this is a bug which involves multiple files, so
 it'll be difficult to reduce it.
 If you're able to compile DMD, change this line in statement.c line 2620:
 Statement *SwitchStatement::semantic(Scope *sc)
 {
      //printf("SwitchStatement::semantic(%p)\n", this);
      tf = sc->tf;
 +   if (cases) error("xxx");
      assert(!cases);             // ensure semantic() is only run once
 and then you'll get the line number where the error is.



 Yay for first time compiling dmd :)



Sorry you had to do that!


 

 If you can provide the function which contains the switch statement,
 there's a chance I could reproduce it.



 I've got something better.. a minimal version :)
 Which even crashes through bud.



Awesome!
I'll track this sucker down so it doesn't hit anyone else.


 
 ----
 module main;
 
 enum E { A = 0 };
 
 struct S{
   int i;
 
   static S func( S s, E e ){
     switch( e ) //<---------- here
     {
       default:return s;
     }
   }
 
   static const S s_def = { 1 };
   //static const S A = func(s_def, E.A ); // forward reference error + crash
   //static const S[1] ARR = [ E.A : func(s_def, E.A )]; // error : xxx + crash
 }
 
 void main(){}
 ----
 To test all this I switched from 1.065 to 1.066; just to make sure it hadn't
been
 fixed already.
 And now my project won't compile any more even though bud+1.065 will happily
do so..
 bud+ 1.066 gives me the following (no crash though)
 
 Max # of fixups = 89
 Max # of fixups = 4
 Max # of fixups = 112
 Max # of fixups = 17
 Max # of fixups = 2871
 Max # of fixups = 233
 Max # of fixups = 138
 Max # of fixups = 7
 Max # of fixups = 353
 Max # of fixups = 446
 Max # of fixups = 5
 Max # of fixups = 4117
 Max # of fixups = 37
 Max # of fixups = 288
 Max # of fixups = 330
 Max # of fixups = 338
 Max # of fixups = 144
 Max # of fixups = 660
 Max # of fixups = 51
 Max # of fixups = 4
 Max # of fixups = 220
 Max # of fixups = 2765
 Max # of fixups = 12
 Max # of fixups = 5
 Max # of fixups = 5564
 Max # of fixups = 2714
 Internal error: backend\cgobj.c 2424
 
 What does that mean?



The DMD makefile compiles in debug mode by default. It prints some 
useless 'fixups' junk. You need to compile with make -fwin32.mak release
or make -flinux.mak release
to make a release compiler. But, not important, you can go back to using 
an official compiler again. <g>
The internal error means it's now crashing in the backend, rather than 
the frontend. Not an improvement!
Jan 13 2011
parent reply %u <e ee.com> writes:
== Quote from Don (nospam nospam.com)'s article

 Yay for first time compiling dmd :)






Had to learn that once anyway :)
Maybe I'll even be able to take a stab at fixing bugs someday..
Jan 13 2011
parent Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:
%u wrote:

 == Quote from Don (nospam nospam.com)'s article

 Yay for first time compiling dmd :)






 Had to learn that once anyway :)
 Maybe I'll even be able to take a stab at fixing bugs someday..



<g>
Added your bug as:

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5453
Jan 14 2011
prev sibling parent Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:
On 1/13/11, Don <nospam nospam.com> wrote:

 The DMD makefile compiles in debug mode by default. It prints some
 useless 'fixups' junk. You need to compile with make -fwin32.mak release
 or make -flinux.mak release
 to make a release compiler.



Ugh, I just realized I was using DMD in debug mode by mistake for the
last couple of weeks. Thanks for the info (I should have looked this
up).
Jan 13 2011