http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2536

           Summary: ClassInfo.interfaces contains null sub-ClassInfos
           Product: DGCC aka GDC
           Version: 0.24
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Keywords: wrong-code
          Severity: blocker
          Priority: P2
         Component: glue layer
        AssignedTo: dvdfrdmn@users.sf.net
        ReportedBy: fvbommel@wxs.nl


See the following code:
-----
module test;

interface IConduit : InputStream {
}

interface InputStream {}

void main() {
    auto ci = IConduit.classinfo;
    // passes:
    assert(ci.interfaces.length == 1, "length not 1");
    // fails on gdc (but not dmd):
    assert(ci.interfaces[0].classinfo !is null, "value is null");
}
-----
Ubuntu 8.10 x86_64, gdc-4.2 from Ubuntu repository (4.2.4 20080705 (prerelease
gdc 0.25 20080312, using dmd 1.024) (Ubuntu 0.25-4.2.4-3.1)).

Both asserts pass on DMD (v1.024 and v1.038), but the second one fails when
compiled using GDC.

This is with Tango installed, in case it matters.

This causes segfaults in Tango's Buffer.share() (via cast(Buffered) ==>
_d_dynamic_cast ==> _d_isbaseof2) :(


-- 

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2536





------- Comment #1 from larsivar@igesund.net  2008-12-22 17:03 -------
I think this one has been fixed in a later revision? Look in the closed reports.


-- 

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2536





------- Comment #2 from fvbommel@wxs.nl  2008-12-22 18:48 -------
Thanks for that. It does indeed look suspiciously like #1844. So I guess if the version Ubuntu ships is < r212 (which fixed that one) this should be marked as a duplicate of that...


-- 

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2536


fvbommel@wxs.nl changed:

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




------- Comment #3 from fvbommel@wxs.nl  2008-12-22 18:57 -------
Okay, given that the date (20080312) in the version is before r212 was committed this definitely looks like a dupe.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 1844 ***


--