• Brian Hay <bhay construct3d.com> Mar 20 2008
• Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> Mar 21 2008
• Brian Hay <bhay construct3d.com> Mar 21 2008
• jcc7 <technocrat7 gmail.com> Mar 24 2008
• Spacen Jasset <spacen yahoo.co.uk> Apr 03 2008
• "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> Apr 03 2008
• "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> Apr 03 2008
• Spacen Jasset <spacenjasset yahoo.co.uk> Apr 04 2008
• "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> Mar 21 2008
• Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> Mar 21 2008
• Brian Hay <bhay construct3d.com> Mar 21 2008

Brian Hay <bhay construct3d.com> writes:

Newbie Q:

During compilation I'm getting the error: "array dimension overflow" but 
it doesn't provide any information as to where (module and line number) 
the error might be, so I'm at a loss. Other errors seem to provide such 
information.

Any ideas?

Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:

Brian Hay wrote:
 Newbie Q:
 
 During compilation I'm getting the error: "array dimension overflow" but 
 it doesn't provide any information as to where (module and line number) 
 the error might be, so I'm at a loss. Other errors seem to provide such 
 information.
 
 Any ideas?


I think there's a limit of 16K for the size of static arrays.
Do you have any really big static arrays?

Anyway, the compiler should generate a line number for that.  Not 
providing one is a bug.

--bb

Brian Hay <bhay construct3d.com> writes:

Bill Baxter wrote:
 Brian Hay wrote:
 Newbie Q:

 During compilation I'm getting the error: "array dimension overflow" 
 but it doesn't provide any information as to where (module and line 
 number) the error might be, so I'm at a loss. Other errors seem to 
 provide such information.

 Any ideas?


 I think there's a limit of 16K for the size of static arrays.
 Do you have any really big static arrays?


No. Nothing like that.

 Anyway, the compiler should generate a line number for that.  Not 
 providing one is a bug.


That's what I figured. It's kind of hard to track down the issue without 
such details.

jcc7 <technocrat7 gmail.com> writes:

== Quote from Brian Hay (bhay construct3d.com)'s article
 Bill Baxter wrote:
 Brian Hay wrote:
 Newbie Q:






...
 Anyway, the compiler should generate a line number for that.  Not
 providing one is a bug.


 That's what I figured. It's kind of hard to track down the issue
 without such details.


I agree.

I filed a bug report so that perhaps a future version of DMD would include a
line
number when it runs into this error:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1936

Spacen Jasset <spacen yahoo.co.uk> writes:

Bill Baxter wrote:
 Brian Hay wrote:
 Newbie Q:

 During compilation I'm getting the error: "array dimension overflow" 
 but it doesn't provide any information as to where (module and line 
 number) the error might be, so I'm at a loss. Other errors seem to 
 provide such information.

 Any ideas?


 I think there's a limit of 16K for the size of static arrays.
 Do you have any really big static arrays?
 
 Anyway, the compiler should generate a line number for that.  Not 
 providing one is a bug.
 
 --bb


compilers for C support close to 64k indexes.

"Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:

"Spacen Jasset" <spacen yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:ft35ik$q7g$1 digitalmars.com...
 Bill Baxter wrote:
 Brian Hay wrote:
 Newbie Q:

 During compilation I'm getting the error: "array dimension overflow" but 
 it doesn't provide any information as to where (module and line number) 
 the error might be, so I'm at a loss. Other errors seem to provide such 
 information.

 Any ideas?


 I think there's a limit of 16K for the size of static arrays.
 Do you have any really big static arrays?

 Anyway, the compiler should generate a line number for that.  Not 
 providing one is a bug.

 --bb


 compilers for C support close to 64k indexes. 

"Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:

"Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:ft3757$11cb$1 digitalmars.com...
 "Spacen Jasset" <spacen yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
 news:ft35ik$q7g$1 digitalmars.com...
 Bill Baxter wrote:
 Brian Hay wrote:
 Newbie Q:

 During compilation I'm getting the error: "array dimension overflow" 
 but it doesn't provide any information as to where (module and line 
 number) the error might be, so I'm at a loss. Other errors seem to 
 provide such information.

 Any ideas?


 I think there's a limit of 16K for the size of static arrays.
 Do you have any really big static arrays?

 Anyway, the compiler should generate a line number for that.  Not 
 providing one is a bug.

 --bb


 compilers for C support close to 64k indexes.




Son of a.

Bill made a typo, the max is 16MB.  While Walter says that this is because 
"any larger array should really be allocated at runtime and not in the 
static data segment", I think it's really because OPTLINK crashes if you 
have something larger than 16MB in the static data segment.

9_9 

Spacen Jasset <spacenjasset yahoo.co.uk> writes:

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
 "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> wrote in message 
 news:ft3757$11cb$1 digitalmars.com...
 "Spacen Jasset" <spacen yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
 news:ft35ik$q7g$1 digitalmars.com...
 Bill Baxter wrote:
 Brian Hay wrote:
 Newbie Q:

 During compilation I'm getting the error: "array dimension overflow" 
 but it doesn't provide any information as to where (module and line 
 number) the error might be, so I'm at a loss. Other errors seem to 
 provide such information.

 Any ideas?


 Do you have any really big static arrays?

 Anyway, the compiler should generate a line number for that.  Not 
 providing one is a bug.

 --bb


 compilers for C support close to 64k indexes.




 Son of a.
 
 Bill made a typo, the max is 16MB.  While Walter says that this is because 
 "any larger array should really be allocated at runtime and not in the 
 static data segment", I think it's really because OPTLINK crashes if you 
 have something larger than 16MB in the static data segment.
 
 9_9 
 
 


need becomes more pressing. Nothing to worry about too much... moving 
on. :-)

"Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:

"Brian Hay" <bhay construct3d.com> wrote in message 
news:frviab$126$1 digitalmars.com...
 Newbie Q:

 During compilation I'm getting the error: "array dimension overflow" but 
 it doesn't provide any information as to where (module and line number) 
 the error might be, so I'm at a loss. Other errors seem to provide such 
 information.

 Any ideas?


Hee hee hee.

static int[] x = [-1: 1];

There's some kind of funky logic in the compiler which for some reason does 
not detect negative initialization indices, but rather does something like

currentLength = index.toInt();
currentLength++;

if(currentLength == 0)
    error("array dimension overflow");

It's to detect index overflow, but it's easily fooled by using a negative 
index, which it should really detect anyway.

Are you using, maybe, 0xFFFF_FFFF anywhere as an array initializer index? 
Also, are you getting an "array initializers as expressions are not allowed" 
error at the same time by any chance? 

Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
 "Brian Hay" <bhay construct3d.com> wrote in message 
 news:frviab$126$1 digitalmars.com...
 Newbie Q:

 During compilation I'm getting the error: "array dimension overflow" but 
 it doesn't provide any information as to where (module and line number) 
 the error might be, so I'm at a loss. Other errors seem to provide such 
 information.

 Any ideas?


 Hee hee hee.
 
 static int[] x = [-1: 1];


Why do you hate the compiler? Meanie.

/me sniffles.

Brian Hay <bhay construct3d.com> writes:

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
 "Brian Hay" <bhay construct3d.com> wrote in message 
 news:frviab$126$1 digitalmars.com...
 Newbie Q:

 During compilation I'm getting the error: "array dimension overflow" but 
 it doesn't provide any information as to where (module and line number) 
 the error might be, so I'm at a loss. Other errors seem to provide such 
 information.

 Any ideas?


 Hee hee hee.
 
 static int[] x = [-1: 1];
 
 There's some kind of funky logic in the compiler which for some reason does 
 not detect negative initialization indices


Thanks Jarrett, that was it.