www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.bugs - empty unittest fails

reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
This code fails, with -unittest:

unittest {} void main() {}


This bug is just a variant of:

http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.bugs/2677

And the suggested (partial) patch:

http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.bugs/2853

--anders
Mar 01 2005
next sibling parent reply Derek <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 12:02:15 +0100, Anders F Björklund wrote:


 This code fails, with -unittest:
 
 unittest {} void main() {}
 
 
 This bug is just a variant of:
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.bugs/2677
 
 And the suggested (partial) patch:
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.bugs/2853
 
 --anders


It doesn't fail on Windows XP.

f:\temp>type test.d
unittest {} void main() {}


f:\temp>dmd test.d -unittest
f:\dmd\bin\..\..\dm\bin\link.exe test,,,user32+kernel32/noi;

f:\temp>test

f:\temp>dmd
Digital Mars D Compiler v0.114
Copyright (c) 1999-2005 by Digital Mars written by Walter Bright


-- 
Derek
Melbourne, Australia
Mar 01 2005
parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Derek wrote:


This code fails, with -unittest:

unittest {} void main() {}


 
 It doesn't fail on Windows XP.


I meant the return code. Not sure how you use those on windows... ?

On unix, you can do stuff like: ./unittest && echo PASS || echo FAIL

--anders
Mar 01 2005
parent reply Derek <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 12:29:32 +0100, Anders F Björklund wrote:


 Derek wrote:
 

This code fails, with -unittest:

unittest {} void main() {}


 
 It doesn't fail on Windows XP.


 
 I meant the return code. Not sure how you use those on windows... ?
 
 On unix, you can do stuff like: ./unittest && echo PASS || echo FAIL
 
 --anders


With people like me, you have just gotta be a whole lot more specific, and
show examples ;-)

Ok, so you are saying that using 'void main()' causes a non-zero return
code to be sent back to the operating system.

Well, I can confirm that in Windows too then.

--- First with a definite ZERO returned ----
f:\temp>type test.d
unittest {} int main() {return 0;}


f:\temp>dmd -unittest test.d
f:\dmd\bin\..\..\dm\bin\link.exe test,,,user32+kernel32/noi;

f:\temp>test & if errorlevel 1 echo fail

f:\temp>

Okay that worked as expected. Now the VOID version ...

f:\temp>type test.d
unittest {} void main() {}


f:\temp>dmd -unittest test.d
f:\dmd\bin\..\..\dm\bin\link.exe test,,,user32+kernel32/noi;

f:\temp>test & if errorlevel 1 echo fail
fail

f:\temp>

So a 'void main()' returns a non-zero.

I guess it would be nice if it returned zero. Sure make some people's work
easier.

BTW, what has -unittest got to do with this bug?

-- 
Derek
Melbourne, Australia
Mar 01 2005
parent =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Derek wrote:


 With people like me, you have just gotta be a whole lot more specific, and
 show examples ;-)
 
 Ok, so you are saying that using 'void main()' causes a non-zero return
 code to be sent back to the operating system.


Yes, I didn't bother repeating myself but just linked... :-)


 So a 'void main()' returns a non-zero.
 
 I guess it would be nice if it returned zero. Sure make some people's work
 easier.
 
 BTW, what has -unittest got to do with this bug?


It means you always have to use "int main" and "return EXIT_SUCCESS",
or your unit tests will always fail. Like you say, that's a pain...

Otherwise, the other bug is unrelated.

 cdouble main() { return 1.0 + 2.0i; }


--anders
Mar 01 2005
prev sibling parent reply "Ben Hinkle" <ben.hinkle gmail.com> writes:
"Anders F Björklund" <afb algonet.se> wrote in message 
news:d01i3p$2d7p$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 This code fails, with -unittest:

 unittest {} void main() {}


 This bug is just a variant of:

 http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.bugs/2677

 And the suggested (partial) patch:

 http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.bugs/2853

 --anders


Techinically this isn't a bug, right? The compiler is behaving exactly as 
designed.
Mar 01 2005
parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Ben Hinkle wrote:


This bug is just a variant of:

http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.bugs/2677


 
 Techinically this isn't a bug, right? The compiler is behaving exactly as 
 designed. 


Not really a bug, no. Just a "missed opportunity" to be better than C...

I like "void main() {}" a lot, and wish that it will be fixed and stay.

--anders
Mar 01 2005
parent reply "Rob Grainger" <nospam nospam.com> writes:
I'd say you're both right here - void main() is nice - I use it a lot, but 
generally not
where the return code is of some use. I don't really see how you can decide 
how
to set it otherwise - the program may actually have failed, in which case 
returning
success is just as disastrous.

One possible approach - to contradict myself :) - would be to have void 
main()
return 0 normally, but nonzero if main() was exited by an unhandled 
exception ?

Rob

"Anders F Björklund" <afb algonet.se> wrote in message 
news:d01o9v$2jsg$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Ben Hinkle wrote:


This bug is just a variant of:

http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.bugs/2677


 Techinically this isn't a bug, right? The compiler is behaving exactly as 
 designed.


 Not really a bug, no. Just a "missed opportunity" to be better than C...

 I like "void main() {}" a lot, and wish that it will be fixed and stay.

 --anders
Mar 01 2005
parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Rob Grainger wrote:


 I'd say you're both right here - void main() is nice - I use it a lot, but 
 generally not
 where the return code is of some use. I don't really see how you can decide 
 how
 to set it otherwise - the program may actually have failed, in which case 
 returning
 success is just as disastrous.


If you do need to return a code, you use "int main" instead.

Similar to parameters:
no need for parameters => "main()"
want to access them => "main(char[][] args)"

And if you change your mind, there's always:
std.c.stdlib.exit(1);


 One possible approach - to contradict myself :) - would be to have void 
 main()
 return 0 normally, but nonzero if main() was exited by an unhandled 
 exception ?


It already does that, which was part of the point of the unittest issue.

int main()
{
   throw new Exception("");
   return 0;
}

This program has an exit code of "1".

--anders
Mar 02 2005
parent reply Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:
Anders F Björklund <afb algonet.se> wrote:

[...]

 int main()
 {
    throw new Exception("");
    return 0;
 }
 
 This program has an exit code of "1".


According to Matthew this program shouldn't be compilable.

-manfred
Mar 02 2005
parent reply Derek <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 13:48:16 +0000 (UTC), Manfred Nowak wrote:


 Anders F Björklund <afb algonet.se> wrote:
 
 [...]

 int main()
 {
    throw new Exception("");
    return 0;
 }
 
 This program has an exit code of "1".


 
 According to Matthew this program shouldn't be compilable.
 


I thought he was saying that its okay to compile this, but tell me about
the unreachable statements.

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
http://www.dsource.org/projects/build
3/03/2005 2:13:37 AM
Mar 02 2005
parent Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:
Derek <derek psych.ward> wrote:

[...]

 According to Matthew this program shouldn't be compilable.


 I thought he was saying that its okay to compile this, but tell
 me about the unreachable statements.


Is this the way how rumors come into living? :-)

-manfred
Mar 02 2005