digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 4935] New: std.bitmanip: bitfields!() template with trailing unnamed field does not work
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (50/50) Sep 24 2010 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4935
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (26/26) Sep 24 2010 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4935
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (15/15) Sep 24 2010 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4935
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (10/10) Sep 24 2010 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4935
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (16/17) Aug 01 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4935
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (6/6) Feb 26 2013 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4935
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (14/15) Oct 05 2013 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4935
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4935 Summary: std.bitmanip: bitfields!() template with trailing unnamed field does not work Product: D Version: D2 Platform: x86 OS/Version: Windows Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: Phobos AssignedTo: nobody puremagic.com ReportedBy: ah08010-d yahoo.com PDT --- Despite the documentation in the library reference manual, a nameless field cannot be set as the "last" entry in a list of bit fields: This code: ========== module scratch; import std.bitmanip; version(unittest) { void main() { } } struct S { mixin(bitfields!( uint, "some", 4, uint, "", 4 )); } ========== Produces this error: ========== $ dmd -unittest -run bronze/util/scratch.d bronze\util\scratch.d(14): Error: variable scratch.S.some conflicts with function scratch.S.some at bronze\util\scratch.d(12) ========== Strangely, leading nameless fields are okay. This code compiles fine: ========== struct S { mixin(bitfields!( uint, "", 1, uint, "", 1, uint, "some", 4, uint, "last", 2 )); } ========== -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Sep 24 2010
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4935 Mitch Hayenga <mitch.hayenga gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mitch.hayenga gmail.com PDT --- Ahh, I hit this myself a few days ago. My fields are now named "ignore1", "ignroe2", etc. I thought it was maybe my mistake because I was trying to do something like... struct Instruction{ union{ mixin(bitfields!( ubyte, "imm", 4, ubyte, "rot", 4, ubyte, "", 4, ubyte, "opcode", 4)); // Read the bottom 8 bits as a longer immediate mixin(bitfields!( ubyte, "imm8", 8, ubyte, "", 8)); } } And was unsure about bitfields support within union type structures. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Sep 24 2010
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4935 PDT --- Entertainingly, this is the "real" code I was trying to work on: union Instruction { ushort raw; // Basic opcode + data mixin(bitfields!( Opcode, "opcode", 7, uint, "rest", 9)); Is it only people working with opcodes that want to use bitfields? :) Also, I think I'm going to request that repeated bitfield definitions be allowed if they are identical - I'd like to redeclare "opcode" rather than "". -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Sep 24 2010
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4935 Andrei Alexandrescu <andrei metalanguage.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |andrei metalanguage.com AssignedTo|nobody puremagic.com |andrei metalanguage.com -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Sep 24 2010
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4935 Era Scarecrow <rtcvb32 yahoo.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rtcvb32 yahoo.com --- I was unable to duplicate this problem, so either DMD already fixed some bug, or my patches already fixed it.And was unsure about bitfields support within union type structures.Inside a union it should be fine, as only one variable is made that's accessible (although enums are present). If those give you trouble, you can use bitfieldsOn (in my branch) to specify a specific variable elsewhere that you want to use for your source. Once the pull is accepted I'm changing this status to resolved. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Aug 01 2012
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4935 PST --- Era: what pull are you referring to? -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Feb 26 2013
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4935 safety0ff.bugz <safety0ff.bugz gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |safety0ff.bugz gmail.com 09:26:00 PDT ---Era: what pull are you referring to?He seems to have been referring to pull requests: 1045, 719, 734 and 740 (all closed unmerged.) This seems to have been fixed prior to 2.060, I'll end up writing a unittest to make sure it stays that way. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Oct 05 2013