On Sunday, May 28, 2017 18:39:02 Brad Roberts via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: > On 5/28/2017 6:27 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: > > There was a whole discussion or 3 is PRs about making malloc pure, and > > IIRC, it was done and then decided that it wasn't safe to do some for > > one reason or another (IIRC, it had to do with what would happen when > > calls were elided, because the caller was strongly pure, but I'm not > > sure). So, I'd be _very_ careful about deciding that it was safe to > > call malloc in pure code. I expect that it's just fine in some > > contexts, but it's easy enough to screw up and mark something as pure > > when it really shouldn't be because of some detail you missed that you > > should be _really_ careful about decided to cast to pure. > > That's one reason I explicitly referenced malloc/free pairs. It's a lot > easier to be sure that those together aren't violating purity.
Agreed. But it's the intricacies like that which make having a clean backdoor for pure a bit dangerous, much as it would be nice when you actually need to do it and know what you're doing well enough to get it right. - Jonathan M Davis