Thread overview
[Issue 2555] New: Segfault using invalid tuple property in a declaration
Jan 05, 2009
d-bugmail
[Issue 2555] ICE using invalid tuple property in a declaration
Apr 02, 2009
d-bugmail
Apr 03, 2009
d-bugmail
January 05, 2009
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2555

           Summary: Segfault using invalid tuple property in a declaration
           Product: D
           Version: 1.038
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Windows
            Status: NEW
          Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: bugzilla@digitalmars.com
        ReportedBy: clugdbug@yahoo.com.au


-----
int foo(T...)(char [T.sizeof] x)
{
    return 0;
}
int c = foo!(int, int)("yy");
-----
It also segfaults if the declaration is in a function, so it's not a CTFE
issue.
It segfaults if any invalid property is used.
----
int foo(T...)(char [T.z] x) {  return 0; }
void main() { int c = foo!(int, int)("yy"); }


-- 

April 02, 2009
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2555


clugdbug@yahoo.com.au changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|Segfault using invalid tuple|ICE using invalid tuple
                   |property in a declaration   |property in a declaration




------- Comment #1 from clugdbug@yahoo.com.au  2009-04-02 14:59 -------
No longer segfaults. Gives correct error messages on DMD2.027, while on DMD1.042 it ICEs:

Assertion failure: 'i < parameters->dim' on line 806 in file 'template.c'


-- 

April 03, 2009
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2555


clugdbug@yahoo.com.au changed:

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




------- Comment #2 from clugdbug@yahoo.com.au  2009-04-03 08:13 -------


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 2229 ***


--