Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Allowing null pointers is undesirable #24

Closed
DartBot opened this issue Oct 10, 2011 · 2 comments
Closed

Allowing null pointers is undesirable #24

DartBot opened this issue Oct 10, 2011 · 2 comments
Labels
closed-duplicate Closed in favor of an existing report

Comments

@DartBot
Copy link

DartBot commented Oct 10, 2011

This issue was originally filed by cf...@gmail.com


Short version: Null pointers are a really good way to mess up a program at runtime, and I'd like the Dart team to reevaluate whether they're absolutely required.

Slightly longer version: I would say the #­1 cause of issues in my programs (excluding logical errors/requirements errors) are NPEs. Having a language support NPE removal, be it via some clever compiler warning or simply removing null altogether, would be wonderful. I'm personally partial to Scala's method of null removal, but I'm sure PL gurus like yourselves have seen many others.

Dart has a stated goal of avoiding the creation of programs that "are difficult to debug or maintain." NPEs are a huge pain point in this regard. I'd be really happy if the Dart team reevaluated whether they are absolutely required to achieve the other aims.

@DartBot
Copy link
Author

DartBot commented Oct 10, 2011

This comment was originally written by cf...@gmail.com


This is a duplicate of #­22, Google Code returned a 502 when I submitted #­22 so I didn't see it had gone through. Please delete this copy.

@DartBot
Copy link
Author

DartBot commented Oct 10, 2011

This comment was originally written by johnle...@google.com


Added Duplicate label.
Marked as being merged into #22.

@DartBot DartBot added Type-Defect closed-duplicate Closed in favor of an existing report labels Oct 10, 2011
pq added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 10, 2015
Pulls in:

* Added `prefer_is_not_empty` lint rule (#143).
* Added `type_annotate_public_apis` lint rule (#24).
* Added `avoid_as` lint rule (#145).
* Fixed `non_constant_identifier_names` rule to special case underscore identifiers in callbacks.
* Fix to escape `_`s in callback type validation (addresses false positives in `always_specify_types`) (#147).

R=keertip@google.com

Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1434773002 .
copybara-service bot pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jul 21, 2023
Here's a minimal repro that this CL fixes:

`ui.dart`

```dart
library dart.ui;

import 'dart:ffi';

part 'foo.dart';
```

`foo.dart`

```dart
part of dart.ui;

@Native<Void Function()>(symbol: 'foo_func', isLeaf: true)
external void foo_func();
```

When compiling with `compile_platform.dart` with `--target=dart2wasm`, the following error appears:


```
Unhandled exception:
Verification error: Target=wasm, VerificationStage.afterModularTransformations: Invalid location with target 'wasm' on FunctionNode() (FunctionNode): RangeError (offset): Invalid value: Not in inclusive range 0..56: 91
Context: 'foo_func_$import'.
Node: 'FunctionNode()'.
#0      VerificationErrorListener.reportError (package:kernel/verifier.dart:81:5)
#1      VerifyingVisitor.problem (package:kernel/verifier.dart:222:14)
#2      VerifyingVisitor._getLocation (package:kernel/verifier.dart:1361:7)
#3      VerifyingVisitor._hasLocation (package:kernel/verifier.dart:1370:26)
#4      VerifyingVisitor.getSameLibraryLastSeenTreeNode (package:kernel/verifier.dart:1342:28)
#5      VerifyingVisitor.localContext (package:kernel/verifier.dart:1382:24)
#6      VerifyingVisitor.defaultDartType (package:kernel/verifier.dart:1491:41)
#7      Visitor.visitVoidType (package:kernel/visitor.dart:1309:37)
#8      VoidType.accept (package:kernel/ast.dart:11190:42)
#9      FunctionNode.visitChildren (package:kernel/ast.dart:3919:16)
#10     VerifyingVisitor.visitChildren (package:kernel/verifier.dart:259:10)
#11     VerifyingVisitor.visitWithLocalScope (package:kernel/verifier.dart:266:5)
#12     VerifyingVisitor.visitFunctionNode (package:kernel/verifier.dart:721:5)
#13     FunctionNode.accept (package:kernel/ast.dart:3908:38)
#14     VerifyingVisitor.visitProcedure (package:kernel/verifier.dart:620:19)
#15     Procedure.accept (package:kernel/ast.dart:3311:40)
#16     visitList (package:kernel/ast.dart:14488:14)
#17     Library.visitChildren (package:kernel/ast.dart:591:5)
#18     VerifyingVisitor.visitChildren (package:kernel/verifier.dart:259:10)
#19     VerifyingVisitor.defaultTreeNode (package:kernel/verifier.dart:196:5)
#20     TreeVisitor.visitLibrary (package:kernel/visitor.dart:503:35)
#21     VerifyingVisitor.visitLibrary (package:kernel/verifier.dart:367:11)
#22     Library.accept (package:kernel/ast.dart:577:38)
#23     visitList (package:kernel/ast.dart:14488:14)
#24     Component.visitChildren (package:kernel/ast.dart:14320:5)
#25     VerifyingVisitor.visitChildren (package:kernel/verifier.dart:259:10)
#26     VerifyingVisitor.visitComponent (package:kernel/verifier.dart:342:7)
#27     Component.accept (package:kernel/ast.dart:14313:38)
#28     VerifyingVisitor.check (package:kernel/verifier.dart:171:15)
#29     verifyComponent (package:kernel/verifier.dart:69:20)
...
```

The issue seems to be that after doing this native transformation, the node's `fileUri` references the enclosing library (`ui.dart` above), but the `node.location` references the actual source file (`foo.dart` above) indirectly through `node.fileOffset`.

This ends up being an issue when compiling the platform dill in Google3,   but I didn't look into why `flutter build web --wasm` isn't broken.

Internal bug: b/292172146

Change-Id: I2b8d7d215b2c36354860257ce651d50168e9523d
Reviewed-on: https://dart-review.googlesource.com/c/sdk/+/315360
Reviewed-by: Ömer Ağacan <omersa@google.com>
Commit-Queue: Jia Hao Goh <jiahaog@google.com>
This issue was closed.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
closed-duplicate Closed in favor of an existing report
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant