(Accidentally posted before to the wrong 'group.  Hopefully my cancel request worked....)

Using DMD 0.120, Windows 98SE.

This code crashes DMD with an IPF, just like it did within catch blocks before.

---------
void main() {
	for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
		debug writefln(i);
	}
}
---------
DMD caused an invalid page fault in
module DMD.EXE at 0167:00429038.
Registers:
EAX=00724dc8 CS=0167 EIP=00429038 EFLGS=00010202
EBX=007299dc SS=016f ESP=0070fb60 EBP=0072a2c8
ECX=00000000 DS=016f ESI=0072a32c FS=4d87
EDX=004b1598 ES=016f EDI=0072a32c GS=0000
Bytes at CS:EIP:
8b 01 ff 50 3c b8 01 00 00 00 59 c3 51 53 89 cb
Stack dump:
00724dc8 0041e95f 007299dc 007297c0 00000001 004947ae 00000000 00000000
0070fc3c 0072fad8 0072edf4 00000035 00720540 0049fd5e 0072edf4 00000020
---------

Again, it applies equally to debug or version.  Again, the presence or absence of braces around either the for content or the debug content doesn't seem to make a difference.

Stewart.

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

Stewart Gordon wrote:
> (Accidentally posted before to the wrong 'group.  Hopefully my cancel request worked....)
> 
> Using DMD 0.120, Windows 98SE.
> 
> This code crashes DMD with an IPF, just like it did within catch blocks before.
> 
> ---------
> void main() {
>     for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
>         debug writefln(i);
>     }
> }
> ---------
> DMD caused an invalid page fault in
> module DMD.EXE at 0167:00429038.
> Registers:
> EAX=00724dc8 CS=0167 EIP=00429038 EFLGS=00010202
> EBX=007299dc SS=016f ESP=0070fb60 EBP=0072a2c8
> ECX=00000000 DS=016f ESI=0072a32c FS=4d87
> EDX=004b1598 ES=016f EDI=0072a32c GS=0000
> Bytes at CS:EIP:
> 8b 01 ff 50 3c b8 01 00 00 00 59 c3 51 53 89 cb
> Stack dump:
> 00724dc8 0041e95f 007299dc 007297c0 00000001 004947ae 00000000 00000000
> 0070fc3c 0072fad8 0072edf4 00000035 00720540 0049fd5e 0072edf4 00000020
> ---------
> 
> Again, it applies equally to debug or version.  Again, the presence or absence of braces around either the for content or the debug content doesn't seem to make a difference.
> 
> Stewart.
> 

Confirmed on WinXP, dmd .121.

Besides, a while loop may also produce the problem:
<code>
void main(){
	while(1)
		debug;
}
</code>

zwang wrote:
<snip>
> Besides, a while loop may also produce the problem:
> <code>
> void main(){
>     while(1)
>         debug;
> }
> </code>

I also tried my snippet with while, if and switch, and the problem didn't show.  But what does

    debug;

by itself mean?  My guess is that it's this that's crashing the compiler when you try....

Stewart.

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

Stewart Gordon wrote:
> zwang wrote:
> <snip>
> 
>> Besides, a while loop may also produce the problem:
>> <code>
>> void main(){
>>     while(1)
>>         debug;
>> }
>> </code>
> 
> 
> I also tried my snippet with while, if and switch, and the problem didn't show.  But what does
> 
>     debug;
> 
> by itself mean?  My guess is that it's this that's crashing the compiler when you try....
> 
> Stewart.
> 

";" is an empty statement that does nothing.

zwang wrote:
<snip>
> ";" is an empty statement that does nothing.

According to which bit of the D spec?  From what I recall, Walter deliberately left this out to avoid the common C typo of

    if (qwert == 42);
        yuiop();

Stewart.

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

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

Stewart Gordon schrieb am Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:29:51 +0100:
> (Accidentally posted before to the wrong 'group.  Hopefully my cancel request worked....)
>
> Using DMD 0.120, Windows 98SE.
>
> This code crashes DMD with an IPF, just like it did within catch blocks before.
>
> ---------
> void main() {
> 	for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
> 		debug writefln(i);
> 	}
> }
> ---------

Added to DStress as http://dstress.kuehne.cn/run/do_while_04.d http://dstress.kuehne.cn/run/do_while_05.d http://dstress.kuehne.cn/run/else_01.d http://dstress.kuehne.cn/run/else_02.d http://dstress.kuehne.cn/run/for_04.d http://dstress.kuehne.cn/run/for_05.d http://dstress.kuehne.cn/run/foreach_28.d http://dstress.kuehne.cn/run/foreach_29.d http://dstress.kuehne.cn/run/if_07.d http://dstress.kuehne.cn/run/if_08.d http://dstress.kuehne.cn/run/while_04.d http://dstress.kuehne.cn/run/while_05.d

Thomas


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

iD8DBQFCY7ah3w+/yD4P9tIRAmaEAKDPOmJTYmp/cB4QagI+uUH4ap3XQwCgxMlp
0GQA5WiZeAwulcOv3jmvkHw=
=ptSR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Stewart Gordon wrote:
> zwang wrote:
> <snip>
> 
>> ";" is an empty statement that does nothing.
> 
> 
> According to which bit of the D spec?  From what I recall, Walter deliberately left this out to avoid the common C typo of
> 
>     if (qwert == 42);
>         yuiop();
> 
> Stewart.
> 


You are correct.  According to the spec, "Expressions that have no effect, like (x + x), are illegal in expression statements."
But an illegal statement should not crash a compiler, right?

zwang wrote:
> Stewart Gordon wrote:
> 
>> zwang wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>> ";" is an empty statement that does nothing.
>>
>> According to which bit of the D spec?  From what I recall, Walter deliberately left this out to avoid the common C typo of
>>
>>     if (qwert == 42);
>>         yuiop();
>>
>> Stewart.
> 
> You are correct.  According to the spec, "Expressions that have no effect, like (x + x), are illegal in expression statements."

Not only that, but in your example there is no expression at all, so such a thing isn't even syntactically valid.

> But an illegal statement should not crash a compiler, right?

Correct.

Stewart.

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

Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998@yahoo.com> wrote:

[...]
> but in your example there is no expression at
> all, so such a thing isn't even syntactically valid.

Nope. It is an empty declaration, specific a "DeclDef":

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/module.html

-manfred

Manfred Nowak wrote:
> Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>> but in your example there is no expression at all, so such a thing isn't even syntactically valid.
> 
> Nope. It is an empty declaration, specific a "DeclDef":
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/module.html

Nope.  A DeclDef isn't a valid form of statement.  The DeclDef applies only at module level.

Stewart.

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