[Issue 9279] Static array return value implicitly converted to immutable dynamic array

Feb 26, 2015

May 29, 2015

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9279 Vladimir Panteleev <thecybershadow@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |wrong-code --

May 29, 2015

[Issue 9279] [REG2.055/2.063] Static array return value implicitly converted to immutable dynamic array

Posted by Vladimir Panteleev

Permalink

Vladimir Panteleev

Permalink

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9279

Vladimir Panteleev <thecybershadow@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|Static array return value   |[REG2.055/2.063] Static
                   |implicitly converted to     |array return value
                   |immutable dynamic array     |implicitly converted to
                   |                            |immutable dynamic array
           Severity|critical                    |regression

--- Comment #6 from Vladimir Panteleev <thecybershadow@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Vladimir Panteleev from comment #2)
> And now it doesn't even need to be a template function.

I guess that makes it a regression.

This program (based on original bug report):

/////////////////// test1.d //////////////////
static assert(!is(typeof({
    char[2] b()() { char[2] ret; return ret; }
    string a() { return b(); }
})));
//////////////////////////////////////////////

compiles in 2.054 but not in 2.055, regression introduced in: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/218

This program (based on comment 2):

//////////////////// test2.d ///////////////////
static assert(!is(typeof({
    char[12] getArr() { return "Hello World!"; }
    string getString() { return getArr(); }
})));
////////////////////////////////////////////////

compiles in 2.062 but not in 2.063, regression introduced in: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/1519

--

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9279 --- Comment #7 from Kenji Hara <k.hara.pg@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Vladimir Panteleev from comment #6) > (In reply to Vladimir Panteleev from comment #2) > I guess that makes it a regression. I'm not sure it should be called "regression". Yes, the two enhancement PRs appended the cases of original wrong-code bug, caused by the undetection of escaping reference to local data. However the bug exists from the very old versions... --

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9279 --- Comment #8 from Vladimir Panteleev <thecybershadow@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Kenji Hara from comment #7) > I'm not sure it should be called "regression". Yes, the two enhancement PRs appended the cases of original wrong-code bug, caused by the undetection of escaping reference to local data. However the bug exists from the very old versions... Is this about semantics? IMO a regression is the effect of a change, not the nature of the change itself (i.e. whether it introduces a bug or merely exposes a latent bug). You can call it whatever you like, but ultimately the effect is that something works as expected in version N and then doesn't in version N+1. If we were to all sit down, discuss, and agree to use different terminology for different kinds of causes and effects, I could start calling them something else, though I think that would be a terrible waste of time. Anyway, I hope my regression notifications on the pull requests aren't too demotivating. I don't know how I would feel if I received so many regression notifications. I certainly don't intend to accuse anyone of anything - I would like to know if a change that I authored or reviewed introduced a regression, which is why I'm posting the GitHub comments. --

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9279 --- Comment #9 from Kenji Hara <k.hara.pg@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Vladimir Panteleev from comment #8) > You can call it whatever you like, but ultimately the effect is that something works as expected in version N and then doesn't in version N+1. Sorry, I understand that. It was just my complaint against the increasing of regression issues. Fortunately, adding more escape check for the case is not so difficult. I'll open a PR in this day (JST). --

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9279 Kenji Hara <k.hara.pg@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |pull --- Comment #10 from Kenji Hara <k.hara.pg@gmail.com> --- https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/4687 --

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9279 --- Comment #11 from github-bugzilla@puremagic.com --- Commits pushed to master at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/6138de4b39a17cf05ea9f345be27f3f5b20dcb9b fix Issue 9279 - Static array return value implicitly converted to immutable dynamic array https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/6d3fc41b2ed1330bc270ebe67bdf4bf0b92973dc Merge pull request #4687 from 9rnsr/fix9279 [REG2.055/2.063] Issue 9279 - Static array return value implicitly converted to immutable dynamic array --

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9279 --- Comment #12 from github-bugzilla@puremagic.com --- Commits pushed to stable at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/6138de4b39a17cf05ea9f345be27f3f5b20dcb9b fix Issue 9279 - Static array return value implicitly converted to immutable dynamic array https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/6d3fc41b2ed1330bc270ebe67bdf4bf0b92973dc Merge pull request #4687 from 9rnsr/fix9279 --

Forums