http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3192

           Summary: asm in a anonymous delegate crash the compiler
           Product: D
           Version: 1.046
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: blocker
          Priority: P2
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: nobody@puremagic.com
        ReportedBy: lifc0@yahoo.com.cn


below lines crash dmd 1.046/2.031 on linux and window platfrom:

void func (void delegate () callback) {
    callback();
}

void main () {
    func(() { asm{ int 3; }; });
}

-- 
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=3192


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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |clugdbug@yahoo.com.au
            Summary|asm in a anonymous delegate |Segfault(iasm.c) asm in a
                   |crash the compiler          |anonymous delegate
           Severity|blocker                     |major




--- Comment #1 from Don <clugdbug@yahoo.com.au>  2009-07-20 00:26:41 PDT ---
Reduced test case:

void delegate () foo = (){ asm{ int 3; }};

This is segfaulting in iasm.c (line 4269 in DMD2).
if( sc->func->type->nextOf()->isScalar()) // segfaults here: nextOf() is null.

-- 
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=3192


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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |patch




--- Comment #2 from Don <clugdbug@yahoo.com.au>  2009-07-20 00:50:55 PDT ---
This patch is enough to fix the segfault, and allow the code to compile. I'm not sure if it's correct that nextOf() is null, though -- there may be a deeper problem here.

iasm.c line 4269. (in Statement *AsmStatement::semantic(Scope *sc)):

    asmstate.bReturnax = 1;
-    if (sc->func->type->nextOf()->isscalar())
+    if (sc->func->type->nextOf() && sc->func->type->nextOf()->isscalar())
    asmstate.bReturnax = 0;

-- 
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=3192


Walter Bright <bugzilla@digitalmars.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |bugzilla@digitalmars.com




--- Comment #3 from Walter Bright <bugzilla@digitalmars.com>  2009-07-20 02:24:23 PDT ---
For inferring function return type, the nextOf() is null. That would be a problem here, but we never use bReturnax anyway, so just #if out the code.

-- 
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=3192





--- Comment #4 from Don <clugdbug@yahoo.com.au>  2009-07-20 02:38:02 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> For inferring function return type, the nextOf() is null.

It'd be great if you could put that in a comment in the definition of nextOf(). I'd never been sure when it's supposed to be non-null, it's one of the least obvious things in the code. Should it become non-null in a later semantic pass?

Also a comment about the cto, ito, sto members of type would be really useful.
When should they be non-null?
In a great many of the compiler bugs I've looked at, they're null, but I've not
been sure whether the bug is that they're null, or that other code is not
dealing with the case that they're null.

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

I'll put some comments in.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3192


Walter Bright <bugzilla@digitalmars.com> changed:

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




--- Comment #5 from Walter Bright <bugzilla@digitalmars.com>  2009-09-03 13:27:02 PDT ---
Fixed dmd 1.047 and 2.032

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