http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5941

           Summary: Using inner struct which references nested function in
                    a no-attribute or auto-return member function causes
                    "nested function cannot be accessed" error
           Product: D
           Version: D2
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: nobody@puremagic.com
        ReportedBy: kennytm@gmail.com


--- Comment #0 from kennytm@gmail.com 2011-05-07 00:11:05 PDT ---
May or may not be the same as issue 5939. Happens at least since 2.042.

Test case:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
auto f() {
    static int h(int x) pure nothrow @safe { return x*x*x-x*x; }
    struct S {
        int get() {
            return h(8);
        }
    }
    return S.init;
}
void main() {
    typeof(f()) z;
    assert(z.get == 448);
    assert(z.get == 448);
}
-----------------------------------------------------------------
x.d(11): Error: function x.f is a nested function and cannot be accessed from
main
-----------------------------------------------------------------

The bug will appear only when the 'get' function
 - is an auto-return function (e.g. '@property auto get()')
 - or has no attributes at all (e.g. 'int get()')

The bug is gone when you supply at least one attribute to 'get', e.g. '@safe
int get()'.

I don't know if it is a reject-valid or accept-invalid.

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

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5941



--- Comment #1 from kennytm@gmail.com 2011-05-07 00:27:39 PDT ---
A slight variant is when 'f' is a template function taking a delegate literal as input, it will generate an ICE:

---------------------------------
auto f(alias T)() {
    static void h(){}
    struct S {
        void get() {
            h();
        }
    }
    return S();
}
void main() {
    typeof(f!((){})()) z;
}
---------------------------------
Internal error: backend/cgcs.c 363
---------------------------------

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

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5941


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

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


--- Comment #2 from Don <clugdbug@yahoo.com.au> 2011-12-21 14:35:39 PST ---
Reduced test case suggests it's related to typeof():

auto fx() {
    struct S {
        void get() {}
    }
    return S.init;
}
void main() {
    //auto w = fx(); // OK
    typeof(fx()) z;  // fails!
}

Again, adding any attributes to get() removes the bug -- even though get() is
never used.

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

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5941


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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |accepts-invalid


--- Comment #3 from Don <clugdbug@yahoo.com.au> 2011-12-21 23:30:26 PST ---
In bug 5939, Walter explicitly stated that the test case is comment 2 is not a bug. However, the fact that it compiles if the function 'get' is removed, or if attributes are added to get(), is surely a bug. Based on Walter's comment, it should never compile. So I'm marking as accepts-invalid.

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

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5941


yebblies <yebblies@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |yebblies@gmail.com


--- Comment #4 from yebblies <yebblies@gmail.com> 2012-01-19 14:04:52 EST ---
In case anyone's wondering about why adding attributes changes anything, the
compiler does a scan of all the top level members in a nested struct to
determine if it contains any functions, and makes it a static struct otherwise.
 This is unfortunately done badly/too early and it finds AttributeDeclarations
containing functions but doesn't investigate further.
Given that, it sounds like the requirement for having no attributes is really
just a requirement for a non-static nested struct.

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

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5941


Maksim Zholudev <maximzms@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |maximzms@gmail.com


--- Comment #5 from Maksim Zholudev <maximzms@gmail.com> 2013-03-04 09:20:24 PST ---
Linux, 64-bit
DMD from Git head
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/13b3bdbf3819fec810ebfb077957510612dfa815

0.
Compiling code from the description
(http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5941#c0):
--------------------
test.d(11): Error: cannot access frame pointer of test.f.S
--------------------

1.
Compiling code from comment 1
(http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5941#c1):
--------------------
test.d(11): Error: cannot access frame pointer of test.f!(function void()
{
}
).f.S
--------------------

2.
Compiling code from comment 2
(http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5941#c1):
--------------------
test.d(9): Error: cannot access frame pointer of test.fx.S
--------------------

Is this behavior correct?

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