www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 1160] New: enums can not be forward referenced

reply d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1160

           Summary: enums can not be forward referenced
           Product: D
           Version: 1.012
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: bugzilla digitalmars.com
        ReportedBy: aarti interia.pl


//related to: http://dstress.kuehne.cn/run/forward_reference_[07-11].d
//doesn't work in almost all contexts

interface Test {
    Policy fn();
}
//same for classes, unions and structs

enum Policy {Default, Cached, Direct}

void main() {
}


--
Apr 18 2007
next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1160





------- Comment #1 from tomas famolsen.dk  2008-01-10 16:52 -------
the simplest test case is something like this:

X x;
enum X { Y };

Fails to compile with 'enum is forward referenced' error.
This issue came up on IRC and I decided to take a look what was going on.
The issue is that the basetype cannot be resolved.

A working workaround is:

X x;
enum X : int { Y };

This patch (against LLVMDC, might not match 100%) ...

Index: dmd/declaration.c
===================================================================
--- dmd/declaration.c   (revision 135)
+++ dmd/declaration.c   (working copy)
   -642,6 +642,7   
     Dsymbol *parent = toParent();
     FuncDeclaration *fd = parent->isFuncDeclaration();

+    type->semantic(loc,sc);
     Type *tb = type->toBasetype();
     if (tb->ty == Tvoid && !(storage_class & STClazy))
     {  error("voids have no value");

... also fixes the problem. I have no idea what other problems it might
introduce though... Also I doubt it will fix all the variations of this issue.
I haven't looked enough at the semantics code in DMD to fix this properly.

However, this seems like something that shouldn't be *that* hard to fix... Why
not put in the works for Type::toBaseType to be able to run semantics?

Please enlighten me (us) as to why this is implemented as it is right now!


--
Jan 10 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1160





------- Comment #2 from bugzilla digitalmars.com  2008-01-15 04:07 -------
The patch doesn't work generally because the context (sc) for the type may be
very different from the context for the enum.


--
Jan 15 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1160



--- Comment #3 from Walter Bright <bugzilla digitalmars.com> 2009-12-29
03:19:59 PST ---
Changeset 318

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Dec 29 2009
prev sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1160


Walter Bright <bugzilla digitalmars.com> changed:

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


--- Comment #4 from Walter Bright <bugzilla digitalmars.com> 2009-12-31
11:10:28 PST ---
Fixed dmd 1.054 and 2.038

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Dec 31 2009