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

Fix 23491 - Nonsensical deprecation message when using delegate #14649

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 28, 2022

Conversation

dkorpel
Copy link
Contributor

@dkorpel dkorpel commented Nov 21, 2022

The error could still be more informative, but that requires more work. This removes the nonsensical parts of the error.

@dkorpel dkorpel added the dip1000 memory safety with scope, ref, return label Nov 21, 2022
@dlang-bot
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for your pull request and interest in making D better, @dkorpel! We are looking forward to reviewing it, and you should be hearing from a maintainer soon.
Please verify that your PR follows this checklist:

  • My PR is fully covered with tests (you can see the coverage diff by visiting the details link of the codecov check)
  • My PR is as minimal as possible (smaller, focused PRs are easier to review than big ones)
  • I have provided a detailed rationale explaining my changes
  • New or modified functions have Ddoc comments (with Params: and Returns:)

Please see CONTRIBUTING.md for more information.


If you have addressed all reviews or aren't sure how to proceed, don't hesitate to ping us with a simple comment.

Bugzilla references

Auto-close Bugzilla Severity Description
23491 normal Nonsensical deprecation message when using delegate

Testing this PR locally

If you don't have a local development environment setup, you can use Digger to test this PR:

dub run digger -- build "master + dmd#14649"

}
}
else
const(char)* msg =
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's a bit ugly to avoid run-time string concatenation.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is it always evaluated regardless if there's an error?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can this be easily rectified with a delegate? Its better to avoid the whole operation than do a limbo dance avoiding expensive cycles (i.e. allow the code to be simple and avoid the work entirely)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Such a delegate would then create a closure on the heap. I wish there was a standard type for error descriptions in DMD, but since we're currently stuck with printf-style statements, that's what setUnsafeDIP1000 is also based on.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

God forbid a single memory allocation? It's all on the heap already, the GC really struggles with dmd code.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In any case, this PR is not about reworking the signature of setUnsafePreview.

@dkorpel dkorpel marked this pull request as ready for review November 25, 2022 18:52
@RazvanN7 RazvanN7 merged commit 0caf9e7 into dlang:master Nov 28, 2022
@dkorpel dkorpel deleted the scope-param-msg branch February 9, 2023 10:59
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
dip1000 memory safety with scope, ref, return Severity:Bug Fix
Projects
No open projects
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants