digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 1516] New: code gen bug with reclusive call
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (22/22) Sep 18 2007 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1516
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (4/4) Sep 18 2007 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1516
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (9/9) Sep 18 2007 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1516
- Bill Baxter (3/6) Sep 18 2007 I don't think this word means what you think it means. :-)
- kris (4/12) Sep 18 2007 Yeah, I wondered about that too: has visions of cockroaches heading up
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (14/14) Sep 19 2007 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1516
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (19/19) Sep 19 2007 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1516
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (15/15) Sep 19 2007 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1516
- BCS (2/4) Sep 19 2007 I'm not shure that is where the seg-v is. But I'm to lazy to check right...
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1516
Summary: code gen bug with reclusive call
Product: D
Version: 1.018
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: major
Priority: P2
Component: DMD
AssignedTo: bugzilla digitalmars.com
ReportedBy: shro8822 vandals.uidaho.edu
the attached code compile and seg-vs the first time the function goes
recursive. removing the notes lines from before the call fixes this. Also using
"-O" fixes it.
I suspect a issue with register selection because at the ASM level the
differences seems to only be the choice of register.
confirmed on Linux
BTW, the when the code works it runs into a stack overflow because I skipped
the terminal case in the function. That is Not the seg-v that is at issue.
--
Sep 18 2007
d-bugmail puremagic.com http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1516 umm, where's the "attached code" ^^ , hehe --
Sep 18 2007
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1516 Created an attachment (id=184) --> (http://d.puremagic.com/issues/attachment.cgi?id=184&action=view) the file a test case sorry I took so long. My browser took so long getting back to me I forgot to finish the post. --
Sep 18 2007
d-bugmail puremagic.com wrote:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1516
Summary: code gen bug with reclusive call
I don't think this word means what you think it means. :-)
--bb
Sep 18 2007
Bill Baxter wrote:d-bugmail puremagic.com wrote:Yeah, I wondered about that too: has visions of cockroaches heading up the hill to pay the hermits a visit :phttp://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1516 Summary: code gen bug with reclusive callI don't think this word means what you think it means. :-) --bb
Sep 18 2007
Reply to kris,Bill Baxter wrote:wouldn't it be the recluse making the call on the cockroaches?d-bugmail puremagic.com wrote:Yeah, I wondered about that too: has visions of cockroaches heading up the hill to pay the hermits a visithttp://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1516 Summary: code gen bug with reclusive callI don't think this word means what you think it means. :-) --bb:p
Sep 18 2007
BCS wrote:Reply to kris,neh, that would be a reverse-polish reclusive call O_oBill Baxter wrote:wouldn't it be the recluse making the call on the cockroaches?d-bugmail puremagic.com wrote:Yeah, I wondered about that too: has visions of cockroaches heading up the hill to pay the hermits a visithttp://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1516 Summary: code gen bug with reclusive callI don't think this word means what you think it means. :-) --bb:p
Sep 18 2007
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1516
matti.niemenmaa+dbugzilla iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
OS/Version|Linux |All
Platform|PC |All
Resolution| |INVALID
Summary|code gen bug with reclusive |Code generation bug with
|call |recursive call
-------
Marking as invalid: you're using "r.users.length" when r is null. Change the
condition within Part to "if (r && r.users.length == 0)" and it works.
--
Sep 19 2007
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1516
shro8822 vandals.uidaho.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
Resolution|INVALID |
Also this is a bug despite that because "-O" changes the behavior of the code.
OTOH if what you are pointing to IS the issue, then there is another bug in
that the first scope(failure) is ignored. In fact with a bit of checking, by
dropping the nulls from the recursion, it seems that is the case. Alternately,
it might still be a code gen issue, just fixed by another minor tweak. I'd have
to look at the asm later.
So, however you look at it, there is still a bug, just possibly not the but I
originally saw.
I'm reopening because it /might/ be a code gen bug. If someone can confirm it
is not, Go ahead an close it again and I'll post another bug with regards to
the "scope(failure) issue".
--
Sep 19 2007
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1516
matti.niemenmaa+dbugzilla iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|REOPENED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |INVALID
-------
Woops, didn't notice the bit about -O. I would guess that -O realizes that the
foreach loop does absolutely nothing and thus optimizes it away, but I can't be
sure without checking the asm.
Even if it's not that, it's a different issue, since the code here is correctly
failing on a null pointer dereference. If you can reproduce the behaviour of -O
with a loop which actually does something and shouldn't be optimized away, file
another issue for that. Keeping this as INVALID.
--
Sep 19 2007
Reply to d-bugmail puremagic.com,Even if it's not that, it's a different issue, since the code here is correctly failing on a null pointer dereference.I'm not shure that is where the seg-v is. But I'm to lazy to check right now.
Sep 19 2007