On Saturday 15 January 2011 20:27:26 %u wrote: > > Tracking memory in a modern OS is not easy, and this is probably why no > > one > > wanted to make a statement on what was really happening. > > The issue is that the memory *is* leaking -- it's because the struct > destructor is simply not getting called. If I call free() manually, the > memory usage decreases normally, so it's not a measurement problem. > > Furthermore, this doesn't seem to be an Array(T)-related bug at all -- it > seems that pretty much *any* struct with a destructor will not have its > destructor called on exit. In fact, after reading the language > specifications, it seems like the glossary contradicts itself: it defines > Plain Old Data as referring "to a struct that [...] has no destructor. D > structs are POD." > > By definition, if D structs were POD, then they could not have any > destructors. It seems like the language contradicts itself, and the > compiler only *sometimes* calls struct destructors. > > Any ideas? Is this a bug? > > And thank you for all your great responses! :)
It's probably this bug: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2834 However, there are several bugs relating to destructors, and stuff that ends up on the heap is big problem as far as destructors go IIRC. So, it's definitely a bug. - Jonathan M Davis
