http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11139
--- Comment #6 from Iain Buclaw <ibuc...@ubuntu.com> 2013-10-13 08:15:32 PDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > (In reply to comment #3) > > > (In reply to comment #2) > > > > This is what happens when you have GC'd memory only being referenced by > > > > non-GC'd memory. > > > > > > According to the original thread, this would be solved by GC.addRange. > > > Apparently, Andrei tried it, but it didn't solve the problem. I haven't > > > tried > > > to double check. > > > > > > http://forum.dlang.org/thread/mailman.1805.1380438203.1719.digitalmar...@puremagic.com#post-bpcfwijqpmlxozplsalx:40forum.dlang.org > > > > Don't you mean GC.addRoot ? > > The thread made mention of addRange. AFAIK: > > addRoot is a way to say "this pointer exists even if you don't see it". > > addRange is "this memory location which isn't yours, scan it anyways". > > So I think in this context, addRange is correct. But I'll try some with both. Both are correct. Having a look, GC.addRange seems more correct for struct/classes. And I can't re-produce the SEGV if I add in GC.addRange(tmp, size) - unlike what Andrei claims... -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
