"Steven Schveighoffer" <schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 22:07:03 -0400, Adam B <cru...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Walter has refused to put in null checks on the theory that the OS > > > does >> it for >>> you - hence the segfault. Of course, then the only way to get a >> > > > stacktrace is to >>> either have a segfault handler which prints one or to look at a core > > > >> dump >>> (assuming that you get one). Neither is a very pleasant solution. >> >> I see. I guess I can sympathize with Walter's perspective somewhat - >> it does feel redundant for both the application AND the OS to be >> checking pointers. Perhaps then it is the OS that's holding us back. >> If only we could trap a segfault signal and have the OS tell us which >> thread caused it and provide some mechanism to resume the thread with >> an exception... Hopefully some Linux kernel developers are reading >> this ;) > > Once you get a seg fault, your code is not guaranteed to be correct. > Memory that contained code or data could have been corrupted. Even > your stack may be corrupt. > > I think D should handle it by making a best effort to print out a > trace and exit.
Ok I can do this.