-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


XPASS:
#
# const int i = -1;
# int[2] array;
# array[i] = 1;
#

http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/bounds_checking_04.d

Thomas

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

iD8DBQFCZBt/3w+/yD4P9tIRAqfkAKC91ZvKkjYq76F+ML66vQXN7T0XYgCfXSVo
wmtNloKBDwA4//5aoz61BWI=
=WMRG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Thomas Kuehne wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 
> XPASS:
> #
> # const int i = -1;
> # int[2] array;
> # array[i] = 1;
> #
> 
> http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/bounds_checking_04.d

Update your DMD; 0.121 says:

  d.d(5): array index [-1] is outside array bounds [0 .. 2]

I don't think this should be in a stress test either because detecting these scenarios is a quality-of-implementation issue.  But it would be useful to implementors to have this information.

I see you have 0.121 installed, Thomas.  Sorry, what do you mean by your post?  It's pretty terse.  :)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Burton Radons schrieb am Mon, 18 Apr 2005 19:26:38 -0700:
> I see you have 0.121 installed, Thomas.  Sorry, what do you mean by your post?  It's pretty terse.  :)

Sorry, must have been a typo ...

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

iD8DBQFCZHei3w+/yD4P9tIRApq/AKDFoNVRJrYFt2SBMPjGNl0j83dBCgCgocC5
av0dwvei0qZBHuPgktbLN8M=
=dsf9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Burton Radons wrote:
> Thomas Kuehne wrote:
> 
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>>
>> XPASS:
>> #
>> # const int i = -1;
>> # int[2] array;
>> # array[i] = 1;
>> #
>>
>> http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/bounds_checking_04.d
> 
> 
> Update your DMD; 0.121 says:
> 
>   d.d(5): array index [-1] is outside array bounds [0 .. 2]
> 
> I don't think this should be in a stress test either because detecting these scenarios is a quality-of-implementation issue.  But it would be useful to implementors to have this information.

In certain conditions, not having compile-time ABC would be totally naive.  In this instance, the code is semantically identical to

    int[2] array;
    array[-1] = 1;

and should compile/behave in the same way.  Generally, if the array is static and the index is a compile-time constant, the only sane solution is to generate a direct access to the memory location.  To generate all the run-time ABC code for such a trivial case would be almost a pessimisation, and the only other alternative would be to generate an equally perverse, explicit

    throw new ArrayBoundsError(...);

statement at that point.  It follows that it's pretty basic to have this as a compiler error.

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.

Thomas Kuehne wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> XPASS:
> #
> # const int i = -1;
> # int[2] array;
> # array[i] = 1;
> #
> 
> http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/bounds_checking_04.d

Just spotted another name you've used twice: bounds_checking_02.

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.