www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 752] New: Assertion failure: 'e->type->ty != Ttuple' on line 4518 in file 'mtype.c'

reply d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=752

           Summary: Assertion failure: 'e->type->ty != Ttuple' on line 4518
                    in file 'mtype.c'
           Product: D
           Version: 0.178
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Windows
            Status: NEW
          Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: bugzilla digitalmars.com
        ReportedBy: sean f4.ca


The code:

    struct Tuple( TList... )
    {
        const size_t length = TList.length;

    private:
        typeof(TList[0])                     head;
        static if( length > 1 )
            mixin .Tuple!((TList[1 .. $]))   tail;
    }

    void main()
    {
        Tuple!(int, long) T;
        T val;
        printf( "%u\n", val.length );
    }

Gives the following errors:

    C:\code\src\d\test>dmd test
    test.d(9): Error: Integer constant expression expected instead of
cast(int)(__dollar)
    test.d(9): Error: string slice [1 .. 0] is out of bounds
    Assertion failure: 'e->type->ty != Ttuple' on line 4518 in file 'mtype.c'

    abnormal program termination

The __dollar issue can be eliminated by replacing '$' with TList.length, but
the assertion failure remains.  Marking ICE on valid despite the dollar issue.


--
Dec 26 2006
next sibling parent Thomas Kuehne <thomas-dloop kuehne.cn> writes:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

d-bugmail puremagic.com schrieb am 2006-12-26:

 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=752



 The code:

     struct Tuple( TList... )
     {
         const size_t length = TList.length;

     private:
         typeof(TList[0])                     head;
         static if( length > 1 )
             mixin .Tuple!((TList[1 .. $]))   tail;
     }

     void main()
     {
         Tuple!(int, long) T;
         T val;
         printf( "%u\n", val.length );
     }

 Gives the following errors:

     C:\code\src\d\test>dmd test
     test.d(9): Error: Integer constant expression expected instead of
 cast(int)(__dollar)
     test.d(9): Error: string slice [1 .. 0] is out of bounds
     Assertion failure: 'e->type->ty != Ttuple' on line 4518 in file 'mtype.c'

     abnormal program termination

 The __dollar issue can be eliminated by replacing '$' with TList.length, but
 the assertion failure remains.  Marking ICE on valid despite the dollar issue.


Added to DStress as
http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/t/tuple_09_A.d
http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/t/tuple_09_B.d
http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/t/tuple_09_C.d
http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/t/tuple_09_D.d
http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/t/tuple_09_E.d
http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/t/tuple_09_F.d
http://dstress.kuehne.cn/compile/t/tuple_09_G.d
http://dstress.kuehne.cn/compile/t/tuple_09_H.d
http://dstress.kuehne.cn/compile/t/tuple_09_I.d

Thomas

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFFklE+LK5blCcjpWoRAnUeAKClxusf62DZEhW/Ey0m3sHxrwAIcQCdHbGe
zlSTxLz0aJSqKBftW68VrAs=
=6sed
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dec 27 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=752






The statement:

        mixin .Tuple!((TList[1 .. $]))

is actually invalid, as it attempts to make a tuple of tuples. Instead,

        mixin .Tuple!(TList[1 .. $])

is correct. This is also wrong:

        Tuple!(int, long) T;
        T val;

as T is not declared as being a type.
The issue of length not being resolved is still a bug, though.


--
Dec 29 2006
parent reply Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
d-bugmail puremagic.com wrote:


 The statement:
 
         mixin .Tuple!((TList[1 .. $]))
 
 is actually invalid, as it attempts to make a tuple of tuples. Instead,
 
         mixin .Tuple!(TList[1 .. $])
 
 is correct.


This seems a slim distinction.  Adding a set of parenthesis makes the 
code invalid?


 This is also wrong:
 
         Tuple!(int, long) T;
         T val;
 
 as T is not declared as being a type.


Yup, I'm aware of this.  The code actually has a few bugs in it.  But it 
still shouldn't cause an assertion failure in the compiler.
Dec 29 2006
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
Sean Kelly wrote:

 d-bugmail puremagic.com wrote:


 -------
 The statement:

         mixin .Tuple!((TList[1 .. $]))

 is actually invalid, as it attempts to make a tuple of tuples. Instead,

         mixin .Tuple!(TList[1 .. $])

 is correct.


 
 This seems a slim distinction.  Adding a set of parenthesis makes the 
 code invalid?


Sure, in the same way that:

	int foo( (int, char) );

is not valid. Unless a compelling use case appears for the extra parens, 
I'd prefer to disallow it.


  > This is also wrong:

         Tuple!(int, long) T;
         T val;

 as T is not declared as being a type.


 
 Yup, I'm aware of this.  The code actually has a few bugs in it.  But it 
 still shouldn't cause an assertion failure in the compiler.


Right. That's why I haven't marked it resolved yet <g>.
Dec 29 2006
parent reply BCS <nothing pathlink.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Sean Kelly wrote:

 d-bugmail puremagic.com wrote:


 -------
 The statement:

         mixin .Tuple!((TList[1 .. $]))

 is actually invalid, as it attempts to make a tuple of tuples. Instead,

         mixin .Tuple!(TList[1 .. $])

 is correct.


 This seems a slim distinction.  Adding a set of parenthesis makes the 
 code invalid?


 
 Sure, in the same way that:
 
     int foo( (int, char) );
 
 is not valid. Unless a compelling use case appears for the extra parens, 
 I'd prefer to disallow it.
 


It would be vary handy to be able to make a member of a tuple be a tuple 
it's self. the perens might be a good way to denote this rather than the 
usual flattening.

It would allow a parser to convert a template parameter string to some 
sort of tuple structure. This would be vary useful for parsing things.

In fact, that was the first way I planed to do my "d sprit" implementation.

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~shro8822/dsprit.d

After finding that this didn't work, I went with the "parse as you go" 
approach.
Dec 29 2006
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
BCS wrote:

 It would be vary handy to be able to make a member of a tuple be a tuple 
 it's self. the perens might be a good way to denote this rather than the 
 usual flattening.


There's no way to do that with the current tuple semantics.
Dec 30 2006
parent reply BCS <nothing pathlink.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 BCS wrote:

 It would be vary handy to be able to make a member of a tuple be a 
 tuple it's self. the perens might be a good way to denote this rather 
 than the usual flattening.


 
 There's no way to do that with the current tuple semantics.



I was thinking that could be a use for the extra perens

template tpl(V...)
{
	alias V tpl;
}

tpl!(a, (b, c), d);

tuple of three with a tuple of two as the second part.




p.s. while I'm thinking about features, while writing that parser 
generator (see my last post) I realized that allowing a template to 
mixin a specialization for a template and have it overload with other 
templates would be *vary* powerful. mixin and overload can already be 
done for a function by way of an alias.

I'd be interested in your thought on the subject.
Dec 31 2006
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
BCS wrote:

 p.s. while I'm thinking about features, while writing that parser 
 generator (see my last post) I realized that allowing a template to 
 mixin a specialization for a template and have it overload with other 
 templates would be *vary* powerful. mixin and overload can already be 
 done for a function by way of an alias.
 
 I'd be interested in your thought on the subject.


It sounds very complicated :-(
Jan 01 2007
parent BCS <nothing pathlink.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 BCS wrote:

 p.s. while I'm thinking about features, while writing that parser 
 generator (see my last post) I realized that allowing a template to 
 mixin a specialization for a template and have it overload with other 
 templates would be *vary* powerful. mixin and overload can already be 
 done for a function by way of an alias.

 I'd be interested in your thought on the subject.


 
 It sounds very complicated :-(



What about it?

If you are referring to the parser code:
	Most of it is string manipulation templates. The last template
	is just parser for a sudo-BNF and a brain dead implementation of
	that grammar.

	As bad is this implementation is, I think it still beats the
	~1.5MB of code it takes in C++.



If you are referring to allowing overloading of specializations from mixins:
	here is a short example of what it would looks like:

template Foo(int i, char[] str)
{
	int Bar(char[] a: str)(int j)
	{
		return j+i;
	}
}

template Fig(int i, char[] str)
{
	int Bar(char[] a: str)(int j)
	{
		return j-i;
	}
}

struct Fog
{
	mixin Foo!(1, "hi") A
	alias A.Bar Bar;
	// having an implicit form of the alias would be VARY nice.
	// maybe: alias mixin Foo!(1, "hi");

	mixin Fig!(1, "bye") B
	alias B.Bar Bar;

	auto i = Bar!("hi")(3);	// uses Bar from Foo giving 4
	auto j = Bar!("bye")(3);// uses Bar from Fig giving 2
}

The other important thing that would make this vary powerfully is a way 
to allow forward reference to specializations. This would let mixins 
reference code in other mixins by knowing the name of the template to be 
used and the string to specialize it on.


void DoActionList(char[] str)()
{
	foreach(a; SplitOn!(',', str))
		Action!(a)();
}

DoActionList!("Fig,Farm,Foe")();
	// does Action!("fig"),  Action!("farm"),  Action!("foe");

mixin Baz!("fig"); // adds Action(char[] : "fig")


The importance of forward reference comes when cyclical calling is 
needed, as with a recursive decent parser.
Jan 01 2007
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=752


bugzilla digitalmars.com changed:

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





Fixed DMD 1.00


--
Jan 03 2007
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=752


davidl 126.com changed:

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





1.033 dead loop with error message:
kuehne\nocompile\t\tuple_09_D.d(15): Error: string slice [1 .. 1] is out of
bounds

module dstress.nocompile.t.tuple_09_D;

struct Tuple( TList... ){
        mixin .Tuple!((TList[1 .. $])) tail;
}

mixin Tuple!(int);


--
Aug 12 2008
prev sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=752


Don <clugdbug yahoo.com.au> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|REOPENED                    |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |clugdbug yahoo.com.au
         Resolution|                            |FIXED





Fixed DMD2.030 and 1.045.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
May 14 2009