On 07/31/14 01:14, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 7/30/14, 3:41 PM, David Nadlinger wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 22:30:59 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> On 7/30/2014 3:20 PM, Artur Skawina via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>>> void f(ubyte[] a) @safe { assert(a.length>99); a[88] = a[77]; }
>>>
>>> The compiler will insert array bounds checking for you.
>>
>> Trying to understand what your position is: In release mode, but with
>> bounds checking enabled, would the compiler
>> a) be allowed to replace this with a RangeError or, say, ud2 or
>> another halt()-type instruction?
>> b) treat any call to f() as undefined behavior?
>
> I think that's a good example. My understanding (I know it wasn't me who was
> asked...): the presence of assert should not influence the introduction of
> bounds checks.
But it would. Special casing just the built-in types would only avoid
the problem for built-in types. User defined types that handle the bounds
checks differently would still be affected (and @unsafe).
artur
