02.03.2012 19:29, Alex Rønne Petersen пишет:
On 02-03-2012 16:25, Robert Jacques wrote:
On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 08:13:00 -0600, Denis Shelomovskij
<verylonglogin....@gmail.com> wrote:
Even `memcpy` is claimed dangerous at http://dlang.org/garbage.html
(because of possibility of moving GC, I suppose) but it just creates
false positives for GC. `memmove` can even temporary destroy pointers
in some overlapping cases like Google answer on "Lucky" `memmove
source code` request does.
So I reinvented the wheel and created GC-safe `memmove` analog called
`copyOverlapped` with comprehensive unittest coverage:
https://bitbucket.org/denis_sh/misc/src/tip/memutils.d
And I want this or such function to be included in druntime and be
used in Phobos because using `memcpy`/`memmove` when even `memcpy` is
called dangerous in docs looks incorrect and easily fixable.
P.S.
This post is inspired by bearophile's unanswered post titled
"Regarding a recent copy() fix" about really mysterious David Simcha's
answer about `memmove`
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7484#c2
Is this CTFE compatible?
Nope. It uses inline asm.
But one can add if(!__ctfe) before inline assembler to make it CTFE-able
(in theory, not tested).
And a better way is to add if(__ctfe) block at the beginning of a
function with simple byte-by-byte copying (forward or backward) not to
compile both asm and regular logic code.
