http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3669
Summary: Default parameter initialization of size_t can result
in errors about implicit conversions to uint
Product: D
Version: 2.038
Platform: x86_64
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: DMD
AssignedTo: nobody@puremagic.com
ReportedBy: jmdavisProg@gmail.com
--- Comment #0 from Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg@gmail.com> 2010-01-03 20:28:01 PST ---
Okay. Basically, under some circumstances, a default initialization for a function parameter of type size_t with an argument of type size_t results in a complaint about uint not being convertible to size_t. For instance, given the following code:
size_t getNum(size_t num = DEF_NUM)
{
return num;
}
void main()
{
size_t num = getNum();
}
size_t DEF_NUM = 10;
you get the error
temp.d(5): Error: cannot implicitly convert expression (DEF_NUM) of type size_t
to uint
However, if you put the declaration of DEF_NUM first:
size_t DEF_NUM = 10;
size_t getNum(size_t num = DEF_NUM)
{
return num;
}
void main()
{
size_t num = getNum();
}
it will compile. So, it appears to have something to do with the declaration order. If you were to replace getNum() with DEF_NUM, that is
void main()
{
size_t num = DEF_NUM;
}
size_t DEF_NUM = 10;
then it compiles. It doesn't matter whether DEF_NUM or main is declared first, it compiles either way. So, it appears to have something to do with default initialization of a function parameter. In any case, all of the variables involved are size_t, so there shouldn't be any complaints about conversions. I assume that size_t is actually uint and that there's some kind of aliasing issue, but I don't know.
The compiler version that I'm using is actually 2.0.39, not 2.0.38, but 2.0.39 wasn't in the list - too new I guess. Also, my machine is x86_64, so I put x86_64 for the hardware, but since dmd is only 32 bit, I doubt that it matters. But that's my hardware, so that's what I put.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
| 
Permalink
Reply
