• d-bugmail puremagic.com (21/21) Mar 06 2006 http://d.puremagic.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20
• d-bugmail puremagic.com (15/15) Mar 06 2006 http://d.puremagic.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20
• Thomas Kuehne (25/27) Mar 06 2006 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
• d-bugmail puremagic.com (9/9) Mar 20 2006 http://d.puremagic.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20

d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:

http://d.puremagic.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20

           Summary: volatile introduces new scope
           Product: D
           Version: 0.148
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: walter digitalmars.com
        ReportedBy: thomas-dloop kuehne.cn


void main(){
    int i = 1;
    volatile int i = 2; // should fail to compile
}

Testcases:
http://dstress.kuehne.cn/run/v/volatile_03_A.d
http://dstress.kuehne.cn/run/v/volatile_03_B.d
http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/v/volatile_03_C.d


-- 

d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:

http://d.puremagic.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20


smjg iname.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |smjg iname.com





All runtime control statements of this kind introduce a scope.  What bit of the
spec states that volatile is any different?

As I understand it:
- volatile_03_A is correctly classified
- volatile_03_B is incorrectly classified, because i is out of scope outside of
the volatile statement
- volatile_03_C is correctly classified, but for a different reason, namely "A
local symbol's name, however, must be unique within the function."


-- 

Thomas Kuehne <thomas-dloop kuehne.cn> writes:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

d-bugmail puremagic.com schrieb am 2006-03-06:
 All runtime control statements of this kind introduce a scope.  What bit of the
 spec states that volatile is any different?

The current documentation states:


That is "Statement" instead of "BlockStatement" - thus not necessarily a
new scope.

Either I'm missing something - if you know, pleace quote - or the
scoping of a few "*Statement"s looks fishy:











A quick search for "Statement" and "scope" didn't return any usefull
hits.

Thomas


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFEDJlJ3w+/yD4P9tIRAtTTAKC2IvC45LJYuspT4aXRIGytNUtJegCfevFn
7qwwLMc6VYmeRLKl7GgbCSM=
=0PXJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:

http://d.puremagic.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20


bugzilla digitalmars.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED





Fixed 0.150


--