digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 602] New: Compiler allows a goto statement to skip an initalization
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (53/53) Nov 26 2006 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=602
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (12/12) Mar 30 2007 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=602
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (10/10) Nov 25 2009 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=602
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (10/10) Aug 17 2010 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=602
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (11/11) Nov 26 2010 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=602
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (10/10) Oct 26 2011 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=602
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (10/10) Oct 31 2013 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=602
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (19/19) Oct 31 2013 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=602
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (8/8) Nov 03 2013 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=602
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=602 Summary: Compiler allows a goto statement to skip an initalization Product: D Version: 0.175 Platform: PC URL: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/statement.html#GotoStatemen t OS/Version: Windows Status: NEW Keywords: accepts-invalid Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: DMD AssignedTo: bugzilla digitalmars.com ReportedBy: smjg iname.com The spec for GotoStatement states: "It is illegal for a GotoStatement to be used to skip initializations." However, this code compiles: ---------- import std.stdio; void main() { goto qwert; int yuiop = 42; qwert: writefln(yuiop); } ---------- 4294112 ---------- The spec doesn't comment on the use of goto to skip a declaration with no explicit initialization, but it has the same effect of bypassing the principle that all variables in D are initialized (unless this behaviour is overridden with a void). In other words, this does the same: ---------- import std.stdio; void main() { goto qwert; int yuiop; qwert: writefln(yuiop); } ---------- In both instances, a goto has been used to prevent a variable from being initialized. Essentially, the compiler treats the code as being equivalent to: ---------- import std.stdio; void main() { int yuiop = void; writefln(yuiop); } ---------- --
Nov 26 2006
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=602 Switch statements can also contain initializations prior to any case or default. This is either a symptom of this bug, or an enhancement request. I'll leave it here for now: void main() { switch (1) { int x; case 1: assert (x == x.init); } } --
Mar 30 2007
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=602 Matti Niemenmaa <matti.niemenmaa+dbugzilla iki.fi> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |anteusz freemail.hu 2009-11-25 01:38:02 PST --- *** Issue 3549 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. *** -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Nov 25 2009
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=602 Lars T. Kyllingstad <bugzilla kyllingen.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bearophile_hugs eml.cc 09:51:02 PDT --- *** Issue 4667 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. *** -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Aug 17 2010
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=602 Andrei Alexandrescu <andrei metalanguage.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |andrei metalanguage.com Version|0.175 |D1 & D2 AssignedTo|nobody puremagic.com |bugzilla digitalmars.com -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Nov 26 2010
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=602 Kasumi Hanazuki <k.hanazuki gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |destructionator gmail.com PDT --- *** Issue 6683 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. *** -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Oct 26 2011
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=602 Martin Nowak <code dawg.eu> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jlquinn optonline.net *** Issue 4101 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. *** -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Oct 31 2013
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=602 Any ideas how to implement this? It seems like an algorithm to distinguish this is non-trivial. I tested the following with clang and it gives me a correct warning (gcc 4.7.2 doesn't). goto.c:3:9:warning: variable 'test' is used uninitialized whenever 'if' condition is true [-Wsometimes-uninitialized] int bug(int val) { if (val) goto Lno; int test = 0; Lno: {} return test; } -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Oct 31 2013
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=602 It seems to me quite simple: If there is any variable that is in scope at the point of the label but not at the point of the goto statement, then we have a problem. Is there any case that this doesn't cover? -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Nov 03 2013