Walter Bright wrote:
Consider the code:
@safe:
T[] foo(T[] a) { return a; }
T[] bar()
{
T[10] x;
return foo(x);
}
Now we've got an escaping reference to bar's stack. This is not memory
safe. But giving up slices is a heavy burden.
So it occurred to me that the same solution for closures can be used
here. If the address is taken of a stack variable in a safe function,
that variable is instead allocated on the heap. If a more advanced
compiler could prove that the address does not escape, it could be put
back on the stack.
The code will be a little slower, but it will be memory safe. This
change wouldn't be done in trusted or unsafe functions.
That's just idiotic. One of the main uses of static arrays is to _avoid_
heap memory allocation in the first place. Do what you want within
@safe, but leave "unsafe" (oh god what a pejorative) alone.
