== Quote from Ivo Kasiuk (i.kas...@gmx.de)'s article
> > I added the struct again and also ran without the enclosing X class.
> >
> > With X :
> > no reference
> > ========== reference, ad3fd0, ad3fc0, ad3fa0, ad3f80
> > new uint
> > AA
> > struct
> > uint
> > reference
> >
> > Without X :
> > no reference
> > ========== reference, ad2fd0, ad2fc0, ad2fa0, ad2f80
> > new uint
> ...
> No suprises with the struct.
> And the "Without X" example... I am not sure, with the variables all in
> the current stack frame that might be a special case. What about global
> variables instead:
Actually, those were global variables: I simply commented out the encapsulating
class and constructor.
But I left all the allocation in the main.. would that matter?
> ...
> C c;
> uint r;
> S s;
> uint[int] a;
> uint* p;
> uint[] arr;
> void f() {
> c = new C("reference");
> new C("no reference");
> r = cast(uint) cast(void*) new C("uint");
> s = S(cast(uint) cast(void*) new C("struct"));
> a[0] = cast(uint) cast(void*) new C("AA");
> p = new uint;
> *p = (cast(uint) cast(void*) new C("new uint"));
> arr = new uint[1];
> arr[0] = (cast(uint) cast(void*) new C("array"));
> }
> void main(string[] args) {
> f();
> GC.collect();
> writefln("========== %s, %x, %x, %x, %x, %x",
> c.s, r, s.r, a[0], *p, arr[0]);
> }
> That gives me (with D2):
> array
> new uint
> no reference
> ========== reference, f74c3e20, f74c3e10, f74c3df0, f74
> c3dd0, f74c3db0
> AA
> struct
> uint
> reference
