Jonas Maebe wrote:
Hi,
Does anyone know what the accepted/excepted behaviour is regarding the
capture of addresses of var/out/const-by-address/constref parameters?
For example:
var
g: longint;
p: plongint;
procedure test(var l: longint);
begin
p:=@l;
end;
begin
test(g);
end.
After test() executes, p now contains the address of g (the '@' operator
does not return the address of g's address on the stack; it returns the
actual address of g). This means that g's address has been captured by
test(). This can obviously lead to wrong/dangerous situations, e.g. if g
was not a global variable, but a local variable of another procedure.
That said, it is a legal expression.
I would like to teach the compiler to be able to assume that addresses
of variables are not captured merely because they are passed by
reference. There will also be a switch to toggle this assumption,
because fortunately it the behaviour is completely defined by the callee
side (so if you know that a unit does this, compiling that unit
appropriately is sufficient to ensure it will always work correctly).
The question is: should the compiler by default assume that such
addresses are not captured, or that they are captured? Does anyone know
if a lot of code exists that does this?
I've a lot of (interfacing) code where the address of a var is used,
where the resulting pointer used locally. I don't think I've code which
stores that pointer somewhere outside the procedure.
Marc
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
