Ok so me and one of my colleagues have been working on some code at a distance. We both use dmd as the compiler. I am under Windows, she OSX.

It is not uncommon that she experiences more strictness in the type system than I do. For example, something like this does compile for me, but not for her:

int func(size_t i)
{
  return i;
}

It passes my compilation. She gets an error msg about implicit casting of uint to int. I'm just wondering... has anybody else experienced that and what is the expected behavior?

Thanks,
Phil

On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 19:51:48 UTC, Phil Lavoie wrote:
> Ok so me and one of my colleagues have been working on some code at a distance. We both use dmd as the compiler. I am under Windows, she OSX.
>
> It is not uncommon that she experiences more strictness in the type system than I do. For example, something like this does compile for me, but not for her:
>
> int func(size_t i)
> {
>   return i;
> }
>
> It passes my compilation. She gets an error msg about implicit casting of uint to int. I'm just wondering... has anybody else experienced that and what is the expected behavior?
>
> Thanks,
> Phil

size_t is different on 32-bit and 64-bit systems. If she's building 64-bit binaries on OS-X and you're building 32-bit binaries on Windows you could see different messages.

Either way, size_t is unsigned, int is signed, and you should probably be getting the warning as well.

On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 19:56:29 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:
> On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 19:51:48 UTC, Phil Lavoie wrote:
>> Ok so me and one of my colleagues have been working on some code at a distance. We both use dmd as the compiler. I am under Windows, she OSX.
>>
>> It is not uncommon that she experiences more strictness in the type system than I do. For example, something like this does compile for me, but not for her:
>>
>> int func(size_t i)
>> {
>>  return i;
>> }
>>
>> It passes my compilation. She gets an error msg about implicit casting of uint to int. I'm just wondering... has anybody else experienced that and what is the expected behavior?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Phil
>
> size_t is different on 32-bit and 64-bit systems. If she's building 64-bit binaries on OS-X and you're building 32-bit binaries on Windows you could see different messages.
>
> Either way, size_t is unsigned, int is signed, and you should probably be getting the warning as well.

All right thanks Brian you were right on point.
I 32 she 64.

Indeed, I should have gotten a a warning because it is unsafe. When I emit code for 64 bit machine I get the error messages she does, which at least allows me to avoid making her compilation fail.

Thanks again Brian!
Phil

On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 19:51:48 UTC, Phil Lavoie wrote:
> Ok so me and one of my colleagues have been working on some code at a distance. We both use dmd as the compiler. I am under Windows, she OSX.
>
> It is not uncommon that she experiences more strictness in the type system than I do. For example, something like this does compile for me, but not for her:
>
> int func(size_t i)
> {
>   return i;
> }
>
> It passes my compilation. She gets an error msg about implicit casting of uint to int. I'm just wondering... has anybody else experienced that and what is the expected behavior?
>
> Thanks,
> Phil

size_t is a typedef to unsigned (check out http://dlang.org/type.html). So this warning is correct. I don't get this warning too. Maybe it's the type-checking that does differ on OSX. Are you using same compiler version and flags?

On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 20:05:27 UTC, MacAsm wrote:
> On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 19:51:48 UTC, Phil Lavoie wrote:
>> Ok so me and one of my colleagues have been working on some code at a distance. We both use dmd as the compiler. I am under Windows, she OSX.
>>
>> It is not uncommon that she experiences more strictness in the type system than I do. For example, something like this does compile for me, but not for her:
>>
>> int func(size_t i)
>> {
>>  return i;
>> }
>>
>> It passes my compilation. She gets an error msg about implicit casting of uint to int. I'm just wondering... has anybody else experienced that and what is the expected behavior?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Phil
>
> size_t is a typedef to unsigned (check out http://dlang.org/type.html). So this warning is correct. I don't get this warning too. Maybe it's the type-checking that does differ on OSX. Are you using same compiler version and flags?

Yeah yeah I checked it out and we both use same versions and everything. Basically, to bit word size coherent I should just have writtent this instead:

ptrdiff_t func(size_t i) {return i;}

Though it is still somewhat unsafe, at least it behaves the same on both our machines.

Phil

On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 20:28:11 UTC, Phil Lavoie wrote:
> On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 20:05:27 UTC, MacAsm wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 19:51:48 UTC, Phil Lavoie wrote:
>>> Ok so me and one of my colleagues have been working on some code at a distance. We both use dmd as the compiler. I am under Windows, she OSX.
>>>
>>> It is not uncommon that she experiences more strictness in the type system than I do. For example, something like this does compile for me, but not for her:
>>>
>>> int func(size_t i)
>>> {
>>> return i;
>>> }
>>>
>>> It passes my compilation. She gets an error msg about implicit casting of uint to int. I'm just wondering... has anybody else experienced that and what is the expected behavior?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Phil
>>
>> size_t is a typedef to unsigned (check out http://dlang.org/type.html). So this warning is correct. I don't get this warning too. Maybe it's the type-checking that does differ on OSX. Are you using same compiler version and flags?
>
> Yeah yeah I checked it out and we both use same versions and everything. Basically, to bit word size coherent I should just have writtent this instead:
>
> ptrdiff_t func(size_t i) {return i;}
>
> Though it is still somewhat unsafe, at least it behaves the same on both our machines.
>
> Phil

Note that the compiler behaves the same, the code, not necessarily.

Am Wed, 27 Aug 2014 20:30:08 +0000
schrieb "Phil Lavoie" <maidenphil@hotmail.com>:

> On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 20:28:11 UTC, Phil Lavoie wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 20:05:27 UTC, MacAsm wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 19:51:48 UTC, Phil Lavoie wrote:
> >>> Ok so me and one of my colleagues have been working on some code at a distance. We both use dmd as the compiler. I am under Windows, she OSX.
> >>>
> >>> It is not uncommon that she experiences more strictness in the type system than I do. For example, something like this does compile for me, but not for her:
> >>>
> >>> int func(size_t i)
> >>> {
> >>> return i;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> It passes my compilation. She gets an error msg about implicit casting of uint to int. I'm just wondering... has anybody else experienced that and what is the expected behavior?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Phil
> >>
> >> size_t is a typedef to unsigned (check out http://dlang.org/type.html). So this warning is correct. I don't get this warning too. Maybe it's the type-checking that does differ on OSX. Are you using same compiler version and flags?
> >
> > Yeah yeah I checked it out and we both use same versions and everything. Basically, to bit word size coherent I should just have writtent this instead:
> >
> > ptrdiff_t func(size_t i) {return i;}
> >
> > Though it is still somewhat unsafe, at least it behaves the same on both our machines.
> >
> > Phil
> 
> Note that the compiler behaves the same, the code, not necessarily.

In my opinion this should always give you a compiler warning, as it is not portable to 64-bit:

uint func(size_t i) {return i;}

But that has been discussed and reported to death already :D

I'm also somewhat pedantic about assigning unsigned to signed types and vice versa. Most of the times I'd rather change the code so that I can keep using e.g. unsigned absolute values instead of differences.

-- 
Marco