On 5/19/13 3:41 PM, deadalnix wrote:
On Sunday, 19 May 2013 at 19:15:47 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Oh, the good old "object of sufficient size". We know how to fix that.
And no, putting nullcheck on access of field of sufficient offset (as
propose dby Andrei) isn't enough because we have value types. Consider :
S[BIG_NUMBER]* a;
auto s = &(*a[SLIGHTLY_BELLOW_CHECK_OFFSET]);
s.fieldAccess; // May not have enough offset to trigget null check, but
still can be usnafe
See bug reports :
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3677
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5176
All of the above are variations on the "sufficiently large object" theme.
Andrei
The code above never access a field with a sufficient offset to trigger
"sufficiently large runtime check".
It does, when the pointer to the large static array is dereferenced.
Andrei
