I'm a bit confused about the implications of the using declaration. The keyword implies that a new type is merely declared. This would allow for incomplete types. However, in some cases it is also a definition, no? Compare the following code:
#include <variant>
#include <iostream>
struct box;
using val = std::variant<std::monostate, box, int, char>;
struct box
{
int a;
long b;
double c;
box(std::initializer_list<val>) {
}
};
int main()
{
std::cout << sizeof(val) << std::endl;
}
In this case I'm defining val to be some instantiation of variant. Is this undefined behaviour? If the using-declaration is in fact a declaration and not a definition, incomplete types such as box would be allowed to instantiate the variant type. However, if it is also a definition, it would be UB no?
For the record, both gcc and clang both create "32" as output.
Since you've not included language-lawyer, I'm attempting a non-lawyer answer.
Why should that be UB?
With a using delcaration, you're just providing a synonym for std::variant<whatever>. That doesn't require an instantiation of the object, nor of the class std::variant, pretty much like a function declaration with a parameter of that class doesn't require it:
void f(val); // just fine
The problem would occur as soon as you give to that function a definition (if val is still incomplete because box is still incomplete):
void f(val) {}
But it's enough just to change val to val& for allowing a definition,
void f(val&) {}
because the compiler doesn't need to know anything else of val than its name.
Furthermore, and here I'm really inventing, "incomplete type" means that some definition is lacking at the point it's needed, so I expect you should discover such an issue at compile/link time, and not by being hit by UB. As in, how can the compiler and linker even finish their job succesfully if a definition to do something wasn't found?
Related
I have a matcher that works perfectly for matching operator() calls on instances of a class or classes derived from that class. For example, it matches the final line of:
class MyBase { void operator()(...) {} };
MyBase b;
b(parameters);
using a matcher like:
const auto MyBaseExpr =
expr(hasType(cxxRecordDecl(isSameOrDerivedFrom("::MyBase"))));
Finder->addMatcher(traverse(
TK_AsIs, cxxOperatorCallExpr(
hasOverloadedOperatorName("()"),
hasArgument(0, anyOf(MyBaseExpr, MyOtherBaseExpr)),
hasAnyArgument(...),
this);
But I'd also like to be able to match such calls on instances of typedefs for the base or derived types like in the last line below:
typedef MyBase MyTypedef;
MyTypedef t;
t(parameters);
and I can't seem to fathom the correct way to specify this match. Attempting to use hasUnqualifiedDesugaredType rather than hasType doesn't work since it works on a type rather than a Decl and if I try to do more matching with the type then I can't use isSameOrDerived which returns a Matcher<CXXRecordDecl>. A similar problem occurs when trying to use hasCanonicalType:
.../RedundantStringCStrCheck.cpp:193:40: error: invalid initialization of reference of type ‘const clang::ast_matchers:
:internal::Matcher<clang::QualType>&’ from expression of type ‘clang::ast_matchers::internal::BindableMatcher<clang::Decl>’
193 | expr(hasCanonicalType(cxxRecordDecl(isSameOrDerivedFrom("::MyBase"))));
MyTypedef is defined from MyBase so its Canonical Type should be MyBase. More information about canonical type: https://clang.llvm.org/docs/InternalsManual.html#canonical-types
This is the example from LibASTMatchersReference , it uses hasType().
Thien Tran provided the pointer which led me to the right answer. Here's my original expression
const auto MyBaseExpr =
expr(hasType(cxxRecordDecl(isSameOrDerivedFrom("::MyBase"))));
I was trying to use:
const auto MyBaseExpr =
expr(hasCanonicalType(cxxRecordDecl(isSameOrDerivedFrom("::MyBase"))));
but the description of hasCanonicalType in LibASTMatchersReference shows that it takes and returns Matcher<QualType> yet cxxRecordDecl has type Matcher<Decl>, so this did not compile.
The mismatch of types can be corrected by inserting a call to hasDeclaration. It's then also necessary to keep the call to hasType in order to turn the Matcher<QualType> result of hasCanonicalType back into something that can be passed to expr.
After all that I ended up with:
const auto MyBaseExpr =
expr(hasType(hasCanonicalType(hasDeclaration(cxxRecordDecl(isSameOrDerivedFrom("::MyBase"))))));
which seems to work perfectly.
I've got a structure with C representation:
struct Scard_IO_Request {
proto: u32,
pciLength: u32
}
when I want to ask the sizeof (like in C sizeof()) using:
mem::sizeof<Scard_IO_Request>();
I get compilation error:
"error: `sizeof` is a reserved keyword"
Why can't I use this sizeof function like in C? Is there an alternative?
For two reasons:
There is no such function as "sizeof", so the compiler is going to have a rather difficult time calling it.
That's not how you invoke generic functions.
If you check the documentation for mem::size_of (which you can find even if you search for "sizeof"), you will see that it includes a runnable example which shows you how to call it. For posterity, the example in question is:
fn main() {
use std::mem;
assert_eq!(4, mem::size_of::<i32>());
}
In your specific case, you'd get the size of that structure using
mem::size_of::<Scard_IO_Request>()
In dart, when developing a web application, if I invoke a method with a wrong number of arguments, the editor shows a warning message, the javascript compilation however runs successfully, and an error is only raised runtime. This is also the case for example if I refer and unexistent variable, or I pass a method argument of the wrong type.
I ask, if the editor already know that things won't work, why is the compilation successful? Why do we have types if they are not checked at compile time? I guess this behaviour has a reason, but I couldn't find it explained anywhere.
In Dart, many programming errors are warnings.
This is for two reasons.
The primary reason is that it allows you to run your program while you are developing it. If some of your code isn't complete yet, or it's only half refactored and still uses the old variable names, you can still test the other half. If you weren't allowed to run the program before it was perfect, that would not be possible.
The other reason is that warnings represent only static type checking, which doesn't know everything about your program, It might be that your program will work, it's just impossible for the analyser to determine.
Example:
class C {
int foo(int x) => x;
}
class D implements C {
num foo(num x, [num defaultValue]) => x == null ? defaultValue : x;
}
void bar(C c) => print(c.foo(4.1, 42)); // Static warning: wrong argument count, bad type.
main() { bar(new D()); } // Program runs fine.
If your program works, it shouldn't be stopped by a pedantic analyser that only knows half the truth. You should still look at the warnings, and consider whether there is something to worry about, but it is perfectly fine to decide that you actually know better than the compiler.
There is no compilation stage. What you see is warning based on type. For example:
This code will have warning:
void main() {
var foo = "";
foo.baz();
}
but this one won't:
void main() {
var foo;
foo.baz();
}
because code analyzer cant deduct the type of foo
I'm working on a platform invoke call from F#, and I am getting a compiler error I really can't make that much sense out of. First, let me show the C signature of what I am doing:
int Foo(
ULONG_PTR *phHandle,
DWORD flags
);
In F#, I think the correct way to invoke this natively is as so:
[<DllImport("somedll.dll")>]
static extern int APlatformInvokeCall
(
[<Out>]nativeint& phHandle,
uint32 flags
)
If I try to call this in a class, I get a compilation error when calling it like so:
type Class1() =
[<DllImport("somedll.dll")>]
static extern int APlatformInvokeCall
(
nativeint& phHandle,
uint32 flags
)
member this.Foo() =
let mutable thing = nativeint 0
APlatformInvokeCall(&thing, 0u) |> ignore
thing
The error is:
A type instantiation involves a byref type. This is not permitted by the rules of Common IL.
Weirdly, when I do this all in a module, the compilation errors go away:
module Module1 =
[<DllImport("somedll.dll")>]
extern int APlatformInvokeCall
(
nativeint& phHandle,
uint32 flags
)
let Foo() =
let mutable thing = nativeint 0
APlatformInvokeCall(&thing, 0u) |> ignore
thing
Why does this compile as a module, but not as a class?
I don't think it's valid to define an extern method within a class in F#.
If you pull up the F# 3.0 language specification and search for DllImport, near the bottom is a table listing some special attributes and how they can be used. The text for [<DllImport>] says:
When applied to a function definition in a module, causes the F# compiler to ignore the implementation of the definition, and instead compile it as a CLI P/Invoke stub declaration.
That seems to indicate that it's only valid to declare extern methods (that use [<DllImport>]) on functions defined in a module; it doesn't say anything about class members though.
I think you're running into a compiler bug. Please submit this code to fsbugs#microsoft.com so they can fix the error message emitted by the compiler -- it should really be giving you an error about defining an extern method in a class since that's not allowed by the language spec.
Whether this is a bug not withstanding, maybe this is what's going on: If APlatformInvokeCall were considered a static member function, that member have a single argument of tuple type. Tuples are compiled into objects of generic type (see here, at the bottom, or 5.1.3 in the spec). In this case that tuple is
System.Tuple<nativeint&, uint32>
But ECMA 335 II.9.4 says you can't instantiate generic types at byref types. This explains the error reported.
This explanation fits the fact mentioned above that Class1 works (well, compiles) if you modify the extern declaration and call to take instead a single argument. It also fits the fact that the module version works, since in that version there is no considering APlatFormInvokeCall a member function.
The simple solution is to check the spec, here is the class definition grammar:
type type-name pat_opt as-defn)opt =
class
class-inherits-decl_opt
class-function-or-value-defns_opt
type-defn-elements
end
then we have
class-function-or-value-defn :
attributes_opt staticopt let rec_opt function-or-value-defns
attributes_opt staticopt do expr
which doesn't allow extern.
and
type-defn-element :
member-defn
interface-impl
interface-signature
which isn't what you want either.
As a result, we can see that using extern as you are trying to use it can't be done inside a class.
I'm working on some ActionScript code that needs to juggle a bunch of similar-but-not-interchangeable types (eg, position-in-pixels, internal-position, row-and-column-position) and I'm trying to come up with a naming scheme to minimize the complexity.
Additionally, I don't yet know what the best format for the "internal position" is – using int, uint and Number all have advantages and disadvantages.
Normally I'd solve this with a typedef:
typedef float pixelPos;
typedef int internalPos;
typedef int rowColPos;
Is there any way of getting similar functionality in ActionScript?
If you're using Flex or another command-line compiler to build your project, you could add a pass from an external preprocessor to your build process.
Doesn't get the type-safety, but otherwise appears to do what you want.
I have found an article titled Typedefs in ActionScript 3, which suggests using:
const pixelPos:Class = int;
But that doesn't work – the compiler complains that "Type was not found or was not a compile-time constant: pixelPos" (note: this also happens when I use Object instead of int).
Here is an example of code which doesn't compile:
const pixelPos:Class = int;
function add3(p:pixelPos):void { // <-- type not found on this line
return p + 3;
}
Just make it static const and you can register your own class. Like this:
static const MyClass:Class = int;
And you can't make a variable with this type:
var ert:MyClass; //error
private function ert2():MyClass {}; //error
But you can make an instance:
var ert:* = new MyClass();