| 1 |
Ddoc |
|---|
| 2 |
|
|---|
| 3 |
$(D_S Warnings, |
|---|
| 4 |
|
|---|
| 5 |
$(P Depending on one's point of view, warnings are either a symptom |
|---|
| 6 |
of broken language design or a useful $(SINGLEQUOTE lint) like tool to analyze |
|---|
| 7 |
code and look for potential trouble spots. |
|---|
| 8 |
Most of the time, those trouble spots will be legitimate code |
|---|
| 9 |
intended to be that way. More rarely, it may indicate an |
|---|
| 10 |
unintentional error on the part of the programmer. |
|---|
| 11 |
) |
|---|
| 12 |
|
|---|
| 13 |
$(P Warnings are not a defined part of the D Programming Language. |
|---|
| 14 |
They exist at the discretion of the compiler vendor, and |
|---|
| 15 |
will most likely vary from vendor to vendor. |
|---|
| 16 |
All constructs for which an implementation may generate a warning |
|---|
| 17 |
message are legal D code. |
|---|
| 18 |
) |
|---|
| 19 |
|
|---|
| 20 |
$(P These are the warnings generated by the Digital Mars D compiler |
|---|
| 21 |
when the $(B -w) switch is thrown. |
|---|
| 22 |
Most have generated some spirited debate as to whether it should |
|---|
| 23 |
be a warning, an error, and what the correct way to write D code |
|---|
| 24 |
in these situations should be. Since no consensus emerged, |
|---|
| 25 |
they appear as optional warnings, with alternatives on how to |
|---|
| 26 |
write correct code. |
|---|
| 27 |
) |
|---|
| 28 |
|
|---|
| 29 |
<h3>warning - implicit conversion of expression $(I expr) of type $(I type) to $(I type) can cause loss of data</h3> |
|---|
| 30 |
|
|---|
| 31 |
$(P D follows the C and C++ rules regarding default integral promotion |
|---|
| 32 |
in expressions. This is done for both compatibility reasons |
|---|
| 33 |
and because modern CPUs are designed to execute such semantics |
|---|
| 34 |
efficiently. These rules also include implicit narrowing rules, |
|---|
| 35 |
where the result of such can be cast back into a smaller type, |
|---|
| 36 |
perhaps losing significant bits in the process: |
|---|
| 37 |
) |
|---|
| 38 |
|
|---|
| 39 |
--- |
|---|
| 40 |
byte a,b,c; |
|---|
| 41 |
... |
|---|
| 42 |
a = b + c; |
|---|
| 43 |
--- |
|---|
| 44 |
|
|---|
| 45 |
$(P The $(I b) and $(I c) are both promoted to type $(B int) using |
|---|
| 46 |
the default integral promotion rules. The result of the add is then |
|---|
| 47 |
also $(B int). To be assigned to $(I a), that $(B int) gets |
|---|
| 48 |
implicitly converted to a $(B byte). |
|---|
| 49 |
) |
|---|
| 50 |
|
|---|
| 51 |
$(P Whether it is a bug or not in the program depends on if the values |
|---|
| 52 |
for $(I b) and $(I c) can possibly cause an overflow, and |
|---|
| 53 |
if that overflow matters or not to the algorithm. |
|---|
| 54 |
The warning can be resolved by: |
|---|
| 55 |
) |
|---|
| 56 |
|
|---|
| 57 |
$(OL |
|---|
| 58 |
$(LI Inserting a cast: |
|---|
| 59 |
--- |
|---|
| 60 |
a = cast(byte)(b + c); |
|---|
| 61 |
--- |
|---|
| 62 |
This eliminates the warning, but since casting is a blunt instrument |
|---|
| 63 |
that bypasses type checking, this can mask another bug that could |
|---|
| 64 |
be introduced if the types of $(I a), $(I b) or $(I c) |
|---|
| 65 |
change in the future, or if their types are set by a template |
|---|
| 66 |
instantiation. (In generic code, the $(TT cast(byte)) would |
|---|
| 67 |
probably be $(TT cast(typeof(a)))). |
|---|
| 68 |
) |
|---|
| 69 |
|
|---|
| 70 |
$(LI Changing the type of $(I a) to $(B int). |
|---|
| 71 |
This is generally a better solution, but of course may not work |
|---|
| 72 |
if it must be a smaller type, which leads us to: |
|---|
| 73 |
) |
|---|
| 74 |
|
|---|
| 75 |
$(LI Doing a runtime check for overflow: |
|---|
| 76 |
--- |
|---|
| 77 |
byte a,b,c; |
|---|
| 78 |
int tmp; |
|---|
| 79 |
... |
|---|
| 80 |
tmp = b + c; |
|---|
| 81 |
assert(cast(byte)tmp == tmp); |
|---|
| 82 |
a = cast(byte)tmp; |
|---|
| 83 |
--- |
|---|
| 84 |
This ensures that no significant bits get lost. |
|---|
| 85 |
) |
|---|
| 86 |
) |
|---|
| 87 |
|
|---|
| 88 |
$(P Some proposed language solutions are:) |
|---|
| 89 |
|
|---|
| 90 |
$(OL |
|---|
| 91 |
$(LI Having the compiler automatically insert the equivalent of |
|---|
| 92 |
the option 3 runtime check. |
|---|
| 93 |
) |
|---|
| 94 |
|
|---|
| 95 |
$(LI Add a new construct, |
|---|
| 96 |
$(TT $(B implicit_cast)($(I type))$(I expression)) |
|---|
| 97 |
that is a restricted form of the general cast, and will only |
|---|
| 98 |
work where implicit casts would normally be allowed. |
|---|
| 99 |
) |
|---|
| 100 |
|
|---|
| 101 |
$(LI Implement the $(B implicit_cast) as a template. |
|---|
| 102 |
) |
|---|
| 103 |
|
|---|
| 104 |
) |
|---|
| 105 |
|
|---|
| 106 |
<h3>warning - array 'length' hides other 'length' name in outer scope</h3> |
|---|
| 107 |
|
|---|
| 108 |
$(P Inside the [ ] of an array indexing expression or slice, the |
|---|
| 109 |
variable $(I length) gets defined and set to be the length |
|---|
| 110 |
of that array. The scope of the $(I length) is from the opening |
|---|
| 111 |
$(SINGLEQUOTE [) to the closing $(SINGLEQUOTE ]). |
|---|
| 112 |
) |
|---|
| 113 |
|
|---|
| 114 |
$(P If $(I length) was declared as a variable name |
|---|
| 115 |
in an outer scope, that version may have been intended for |
|---|
| 116 |
use between the [ ]. For example: |
|---|
| 117 |
) |
|---|
| 118 |
|
|---|
| 119 |
--- |
|---|
| 120 |
char[10] a; |
|---|
| 121 |
int length = 4; |
|---|
| 122 |
... |
|---|
| 123 |
return a[length - 1]; // returns a[9], not a[3] |
|---|
| 124 |
--- |
|---|
| 125 |
|
|---|
| 126 |
$(P The warning can be resolved by:) |
|---|
| 127 |
|
|---|
| 128 |
$(OL |
|---|
| 129 |
$(LI Renaming the outer $(I length) to another name. |
|---|
| 130 |
) |
|---|
| 131 |
|
|---|
| 132 |
$(LI Replacing the use of $(I length) within the [ ] |
|---|
| 133 |
with $(I a.length). |
|---|
| 134 |
) |
|---|
| 135 |
|
|---|
| 136 |
$(LI If $(I length) is at global or class scope, and that was the |
|---|
| 137 |
one intended to be used, use $(I .length) or $(I this.length) |
|---|
| 138 |
to disambiguate. |
|---|
| 139 |
) |
|---|
| 140 |
) |
|---|
| 141 |
|
|---|
| 142 |
$(P Some proposed language solutions are:) |
|---|
| 143 |
|
|---|
| 144 |
$(OL |
|---|
| 145 |
$(LI Make the $(I length) a special symbol or a keyword instead |
|---|
| 146 |
of an implicitly declared variable. |
|---|
| 147 |
) |
|---|
| 148 |
) |
|---|
| 149 |
|
|---|
| 150 |
<h3>warning - no return at end of function</h3> |
|---|
| 151 |
|
|---|
| 152 |
$(P Consider the following:) |
|---|
| 153 |
|
|---|
| 154 |
--- |
|---|
| 155 |
int foo(int k, Collection c) |
|---|
| 156 |
{ |
|---|
| 157 |
foreach (int x; c) |
|---|
| 158 |
{ |
|---|
| 159 |
if (x == k) |
|---|
| 160 |
return x + 1; |
|---|
| 161 |
} |
|---|
| 162 |
} |
|---|
| 163 |
--- |
|---|
| 164 |
|
|---|
| 165 |
$(P and assume that the nature of the algorithm is that $(I x) will |
|---|
| 166 |
always be found in $(I c), so the $(B foreach) never falls |
|---|
| 167 |
through the bottom of the code. |
|---|
| 168 |
There is no $(B return) at the close of the function, because |
|---|
| 169 |
that point is not reachable and any return statement would |
|---|
| 170 |
be dead code. |
|---|
| 171 |
This is perfectly legitimate code. |
|---|
| 172 |
The D compiler, to help with ensuring the robustness of such |
|---|
| 173 |
code, will ensure it is correct by automatically inserting |
|---|
| 174 |
an $(I assert(0);) statement at the close of the function. |
|---|
| 175 |
Then, if there's an error in the assumption that the $(B foreach) will |
|---|
| 176 |
never fall through, it will be caught at runtime with |
|---|
| 177 |
an obvious assertion failure, which is better than the code just |
|---|
| 178 |
falling off the end causing erratic, arbitrary failures. |
|---|
| 179 |
) |
|---|
| 180 |
|
|---|
| 181 |
$(P D's behavior on this, however, is not common to other languages, |
|---|
| 182 |
and some programmers will be acutely uncomfortable with relying |
|---|
| 183 |
on this, or they wish to see the error at compile time rather |
|---|
| 184 |
than runtime. They wish to see something explicit expressed in the |
|---|
| 185 |
source code that the $(B foreach) cannot fall through. |
|---|
| 186 |
Hence the warning. |
|---|
| 187 |
) |
|---|
| 188 |
|
|---|
| 189 |
$(P The warning can be resolved by: |
|---|
| 190 |
) |
|---|
| 191 |
|
|---|
| 192 |
$(OL |
|---|
| 193 |
$(LI Putting a return statement at the close of the function, |
|---|
| 194 |
returning some arbitrary value (after all, it will never be |
|---|
| 195 |
executed): |
|---|
| 196 |
|
|---|
| 197 |
--- |
|---|
| 198 |
int foo(int k, Collection c) |
|---|
| 199 |
{ |
|---|
| 200 |
foreach (int x; c) |
|---|
| 201 |
{ |
|---|
| 202 |
if (x == k) |
|---|
| 203 |
return x + 1; |
|---|
| 204 |
} |
|---|
| 205 |
return 0; // suppress warning about no return statement |
|---|
| 206 |
} |
|---|
| 207 |
--- |
|---|
| 208 |
|
|---|
| 209 |
While doing this is surprisingly common, and happens when |
|---|
| 210 |
the programmer is inexperienced or in a hurry, it is a |
|---|
| 211 |
spectacularly bad solution. |
|---|
| 212 |
The trouble happens when the $(B foreach) does fall through |
|---|
| 213 |
due to a bug, then instead of the bug being detected, now |
|---|
| 214 |
the function returns an unexpected value, which may cause other |
|---|
| 215 |
problems or go undetected. |
|---|
| 216 |
There's another issue with the maintenance programmer who |
|---|
| 217 |
sees this, and upon analyzing the code's behavior, wonders why |
|---|
| 218 |
there's a return statement that will never be executed. |
|---|
| 219 |
(This can be resolved with comments, but comments are always |
|---|
| 220 |
missing, out of date, or just plain wrong.) |
|---|
| 221 |
Dead code is always a confusing problem to maintenance programming, |
|---|
| 222 |
so deliberately inserting it is a bad idea. |
|---|
| 223 |
) |
|---|
| 224 |
|
|---|
| 225 |
$(LI A better solution is to make explicit what the D language |
|---|
| 226 |
does implicitly - put an assert there: |
|---|
| 227 |
|
|---|
| 228 |
--- |
|---|
| 229 |
int foo(int k, Collection c) |
|---|
| 230 |
{ |
|---|
| 231 |
foreach (int x; c) |
|---|
| 232 |
{ |
|---|
| 233 |
if (x == k) |
|---|
| 234 |
return x + 1; |
|---|
| 235 |
} |
|---|
| 236 |
assert(0); |
|---|
| 237 |
} |
|---|
| 238 |
--- |
|---|
| 239 |
|
|---|
| 240 |
Now, if the $(B foreach) does fall through, the error will be |
|---|
| 241 |
detected. Furthermore, it is self-documenting. |
|---|
| 242 |
) |
|---|
| 243 |
|
|---|
| 244 |
$(LI Another alternative is to do a $(B throw) with a custom |
|---|
| 245 |
error class and a more user friendly message: |
|---|
| 246 |
|
|---|
| 247 |
--- |
|---|
| 248 |
int foo(int k, Collection c) |
|---|
| 249 |
{ |
|---|
| 250 |
foreach (int x; c) |
|---|
| 251 |
{ |
|---|
| 252 |
if (x == k) |
|---|
| 253 |
return x + 1; |
|---|
| 254 |
} |
|---|
| 255 |
$(B throw) new MyErrorClass("fell off the end of foo()"); |
|---|
| 256 |
} |
|---|
| 257 |
--- |
|---|
| 258 |
) |
|---|
| 259 |
) |
|---|
| 260 |
|
|---|
| 261 |
<h3>warning - switch statement has no default</h3> |
|---|
| 262 |
|
|---|
| 263 |
$(P Similar to the no return statement warning is the no default |
|---|
| 264 |
in a switch warning. Consider: |
|---|
| 265 |
) |
|---|
| 266 |
|
|---|
| 267 |
--- |
|---|
| 268 |
switch (i) |
|---|
| 269 |
{ |
|---|
| 270 |
case 1: dothis(); break; |
|---|
| 271 |
case 2: dothat(); break; |
|---|
| 272 |
} |
|---|
| 273 |
--- |
|---|
| 274 |
|
|---|
| 275 |
$(P According to the D language semantics, this means the only possible |
|---|
| 276 |
values for $(I i) are 1 and 2. Any other values represent a bug |
|---|
| 277 |
in the program. To detect this bug, the compiler implements the |
|---|
| 278 |
switch as if it were written: |
|---|
| 279 |
) |
|---|
| 280 |
|
|---|
| 281 |
--- |
|---|
| 282 |
switch (i) |
|---|
| 283 |
{ |
|---|
| 284 |
case 1: dothis(); break; |
|---|
| 285 |
case 2: dothat(); break; |
|---|
| 286 |
$(B default: throw new SwitchError();) |
|---|
| 287 |
} |
|---|
| 288 |
--- |
|---|
| 289 |
|
|---|
| 290 |
$(P This is quite different from C and C++ behavior, which is as if |
|---|
| 291 |
the switch were written: |
|---|
| 292 |
) |
|---|
| 293 |
|
|---|
| 294 |
--- |
|---|
| 295 |
switch (i) |
|---|
| 296 |
{ |
|---|
| 297 |
case 1: dothis(); break; |
|---|
| 298 |
case 2: dothat(); break; |
|---|
| 299 |
$(B default: break;) |
|---|
| 300 |
} |
|---|
| 301 |
--- |
|---|
| 302 |
|
|---|
| 303 |
$(P The potential for bugs with that is high, as it is a common error |
|---|
| 304 |
to accidentally omit a case, or to add a new value in one part of |
|---|
| 305 |
the program and overlook adding a case for it in another part. |
|---|
| 306 |
Although D will catch this error at runtime by throwing |
|---|
| 307 |
an instance of $(TT std.switcherr.SwitchError), some prefer at least |
|---|
| 308 |
a warning so such errors can be caught at compile time. |
|---|
| 309 |
) |
|---|
| 310 |
|
|---|
| 311 |
$(P The warning can be resolved by: |
|---|
| 312 |
) |
|---|
| 313 |
|
|---|
| 314 |
$(OL |
|---|
| 315 |
$(LI Inserting an explict default of the form: |
|---|
| 316 |
|
|---|
| 317 |
--- |
|---|
| 318 |
switch (i) |
|---|
| 319 |
{ |
|---|
| 320 |
case 1: dothis(); break; |
|---|
| 321 |
case 2: dothat(); break; |
|---|
| 322 |
$(B default: assert(0);) |
|---|
| 323 |
} |
|---|
| 324 |
--- |
|---|
| 325 |
) |
|---|
| 326 |
|
|---|
| 327 |
$(LI As in the missing return, a default with a throw of a custom |
|---|
| 328 |
error class can be used. |
|---|
| 329 |
) |
|---|
| 330 |
) |
|---|
| 331 |
|
|---|
| 332 |
<h3>warning - statement is not reachable</h3> |
|---|
| 333 |
|
|---|
| 334 |
$(P Consider the following code:) |
|---|
| 335 |
|
|---|
| 336 |
--- |
|---|
| 337 |
int foo(int i) |
|---|
| 338 |
{ |
|---|
| 339 |
return i; |
|---|
| 340 |
$(B return i + 1;) |
|---|
| 341 |
} |
|---|
| 342 |
--- |
|---|
| 343 |
|
|---|
| 344 |
$(P The second return statement is not reachable, i.e. it is dead |
|---|
| 345 |
code. While dead code is poor style in released code, it can |
|---|
| 346 |
legitimately |
|---|
| 347 |
happen a lot when rapidly trying to isolate down a bug or experiment |
|---|
| 348 |
with different bits of code. |
|---|
| 349 |
) |
|---|
| 350 |
|
|---|
| 351 |
$(P The warning can be resolved by: |
|---|
| 352 |
) |
|---|
| 353 |
|
|---|
| 354 |
$(OL |
|---|
| 355 |
$(LI Commenting out the dead code with /+ ... +/ comments: |
|---|
| 356 |
--- |
|---|
| 357 |
int foo(int i) |
|---|
| 358 |
{ |
|---|
| 359 |
return i; |
|---|
| 360 |
/+ |
|---|
| 361 |
return i + 1; |
|---|
| 362 |
+/ |
|---|
| 363 |
} |
|---|
| 364 |
--- |
|---|
| 365 |
) |
|---|
| 366 |
|
|---|
| 367 |
$(LI Putting the dead code inside a $(TT version(none)) conditional: |
|---|
| 368 |
--- |
|---|
| 369 |
int foo(int i) |
|---|
| 370 |
{ |
|---|
| 371 |
return i; |
|---|
| 372 |
$(B version (none)) |
|---|
| 373 |
{ |
|---|
| 374 |
return i + 1; |
|---|
| 375 |
} |
|---|
| 376 |
} |
|---|
| 377 |
--- |
|---|
| 378 |
) |
|---|
| 379 |
|
|---|
| 380 |
$(LI Only compile with warnings enabled when doing release builds. |
|---|
| 381 |
) |
|---|
| 382 |
) |
|---|
| 383 |
|
|---|
| 384 |
) |
|---|
| 385 |
|
|---|
| 386 |
Macros: |
|---|
| 387 |
TITLE=Warnings |
|---|
| 388 |
WIKI=Warnings |
|---|