View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
January 06, 2009
[Issue 2559] New: enum doesn't work properly for invariant arrays
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2559

          Summary: enum doesn't work properly for invariant arrays
          Product: D
          Version: 2.022
         Platform: PC
       OS/Version: Windows
           Status: NEW
         Keywords: wrong-code
         Severity: normal
         Priority: P2
        Component: DMD
       AssignedTo: bugzilla@digitalmars.com
       ReportedBy: 2korden@gmail.com


void foo(int offset)
{
   enum i1 = [1, 2, 3];
   invariant(int[]) i2 = [1, 2, 3];


   writefln(i1[offset]); // prints garbage
   writefln(i2[offset]); // prints valid value
}

foo(0);

Test run result:
-------
4315632
1


--
April 08, 2009
[Issue 2559] bad code generation for enum arrays
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2559


clugdbug@yahoo.com.au changed:

          What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Severity|normal                      |blocker
          Keywords|                            |accepts-invalid
          Priority|P2                          |P1
           Summary|enum doesn't work properly  |bad code generation for enum
                  |for invariant arrays        |arrays




------- Comment #1 from clugdbug@yahoo.com.au  2009-04-08 02:08 -------
I've changed the title, since I believe this bug is extremely serious.
Simpler example:
--------------
enum ubyte[4] a = [5,6,7,8];

void main()
{
 int x=3;
 assert(a[x]==7);
}
-----------
Interestingly, compiling with -O gives
bug.d(7): Error: variable a used before set

which shows that the initializer is being ignored.
My opinion is that that's correct -- the only reason you're using an enum is so
that it doesn't appear in the executable! Using a variable to index into the
enum is arguably equivalent to taking the address of the enum, and should
therefore be illegal -- use "immutable" instead.


--
April 08, 2009
[Issue 2559] bad code generation for enum arrays
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2559


clugdbug@yahoo.com.au changed:

          What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                CC|                            |gide@nwawudu.com




------- Comment #2 from clugdbug@yahoo.com.au  2009-04-08 02:09 -------
*** Bug 2792 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***


--
April 08, 2009
[Issue 2559] bad code generation for enum arrays
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2559





------- Comment #3 from clugdbug@yahoo.com.au  2009-04-08 02:20 -------
Possible the same as bug 1884.


--
October 27, 2009
[Issue 2559] bad code generation for enum arrays
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2559


Don <clugdbug@yahoo.com.au> changed:

          What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                CC|                            |clugdbug@yahoo.com.au
          Severity|blocker                     |critical


-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
October 20, 2010
[Issue 2559] bad code generation for enum arrays
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2559


Don <clugdbug@yahoo.com.au> changed:

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


--- Comment #4 from Don <clugdbug@yahoo.com.au> 2010-10-19 23:54:24 PDT ---
This was fixed in DMD2.031. The reduced test case was wrong! Should have been
int x=2;

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home