digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 3029] New: Bug in array value mangling rule
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (53/53) May 27 2009 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3029
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (6/6) May 27 2009 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3029
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (27/27) Jun 06 2009 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3029
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (10/10) Feb 05 2010 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3029
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (10/10) Feb 05 2010 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3029
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (10/11) Feb 05 2010 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3029
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (11/12) Feb 05 2010 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3029
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (11/11) Mar 08 2010 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3029
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (15/15) Feb 21 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3029
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3029
Summary: Bug in array value mangling rule
Product: D
Version: 2.030
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Keywords: spec, wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: DMD
AssignedTo: bugzilla digitalmars.com
ReportedBy: rsinfu gmail.com
This valid code:
--------------------
module test;
import std.stdio;
struct S(alias init)
{
int[] content = init;
}
void main()
{
S!([12, 3]) s1;
S!([1, 23]) s2;
writeln(s1.content);
writeln(s2.content);
}
--------------------
prints wrong values:
--------------------
12 3
12 3
--------------------
The second line should be "1 23", not "12 3".
That is caused by a bug in the current array value mangling rule:
--------------------
Value:
A Number Value...
--------------------
Under this rule, both S!([12, 3]) and S!([1, 23]) get mangled to the same name
"S4test15__T1SVG2iA2123Z". (Name collision!!!)
There should be delimiters in Values. For example:
--------------------
Value:
A Number Values
Values:
Value
Value _ Values
--------------------
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
May 27 2009
d-bugmail puremagic.com http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3029 --- Struct literals and associative array literals have the same bug too. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
May 27 2009
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3029
---
Another (possibly better) option is to fix the numeric literal mangling rule as
this:
--------------------
Value:
i Number // positive numeric literal
i N Number // negative numeric literal
--------------------
The prefix 'i' avoids the mangled-name collision. And this rule is consistent
with other literal mangling rules, which are prefixed by some character (e.g.
'e' for floating point literals).
Patch (expression.c):
--------------------
void IntegerExp::toMangleBuffer(OutBuffer *buf)
{
if ((sinteger_t)value < 0)
- buf->printf("N%jd", -value);
+ buf->printf("iN%jd", -value);
else
- buf->printf("%jd", value);
+ buf->printf("i%jd", value);
}
--------------------
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jun 06 2009
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3029
Walter Bright <bugzilla digitalmars.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |bugzilla digitalmars.com
19:27:30 PST ---
changeset 370
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Feb 05 2010
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3029
Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |braddr puremagic.com
---
Why keep the backwards compatibility in D2?
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Feb 05 2010
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3029Why keep the backwards compatibility in D2?Yes. With things like the recent change to ModuleInfo, you can't even update the compiler one revision without recompiling. So I don't think we have to worry about D2 backwards compatibility for the next month (which is why it's crucial to get these types of bugs fixed now). -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Feb 05 2010
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3029
Kosmonaut <Kosmonaut tempinbox.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |Kosmonaut tempinbox.com
---
changeset 370
http://www.dsource.org/projects/dmd/changeset/370
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Feb 05 2010
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3029
Walter Bright <bugzilla digitalmars.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
22:19:22 PST ---
Fixed dmd 1.057 and 2.041
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Mar 08 2010
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3029
yebblies <yebblies gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |yebblies gmail.com
What happened here? Are we really maintaining backwards compatibility in only
the cases that _weren't_ buggy? What legacy compiled code base is this
supposed to be supporting?
I seriously doubt anyone expects to be able to use a new version of dmd without
recompiling their code at this point.
See expression.c:2128
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Feb 21 2012