[Issue 3549] Bypassing initializers with goto -- Is this a bug?
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3549 Don changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clugd...@yahoo.com.au Summary|Is this a bug? |Bypassing initializers with ||goto -- Is this a bug? --- Comment #1 from Don 2009-11-24 20:00:14 PST --- I don't know. That's an interesting case for safe D. In safe D, either the initializers must be executed, or bypassing them must be banned. The code below is an example of memory corruption. But as @safe isn't yet implemented (so far it only checks for use of asm, AFAIK), it's not a bug yet. - class Foo { int x; } @safe void foo() { goto xxx; Foo a = new Foo(); xxx: a.x = 8; } -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3549] Bypassing initializers with goto -- Is this a bug?
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3549 Matti Niemenmaa changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||matti.niemenmaa+dbugzi...@i ||ki.fi Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Comment #2 from Matti Niemenmaa 2009-11-25 01:38:02 PST --- *** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of issue 602 *** -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3549] Bypassing initializers with goto -- Is this a bug?
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3549 Walter Bright changed: What|Removed |Added Version|1.051 |D1 --
Re: [Issue 3549] Bypassing initializers with goto -- Is this a bug?
d-bugm...@puremagic.com wrote: > http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3549 > > > Don changed: > >What|Removed |Added > > CC||clugd...@yahoo.com.au > Summary|Is this a bug? |Bypassing initializers with >||goto -- Is this a bug? > > > --- Comment #1 from Don 2009-11-24 20:00:14 PST --- > I don't know. That's an interesting case for safe D. In safe D, either the > initializers must be executed, or bypassing them must be banned. The code below > is an example of memory corruption. But as @safe isn't yet implemented (so far > it only checks for use of asm, AFAIK), it's not a bug yet. > > - > class Foo { int x; } > > @safe > void foo() > { >goto xxx; >Foo a = new Foo(); > xxx: >a.x = 8; > } > > I would say that it is definitely a bug, if D is supposed to initialize memory to zero when it is allocated. The assignments obviously replace the initialize to zero, which makes sense except in this example. I can only think of goto being the problem how else could you skip the initialization. Perhaps the compiler should initialize to zero if there is a goto even if the initialization is overridden except for void initialization. This should even be allowed in D1 let alone D2 or SafeD. :) just my two cents.
Re: [Issue 3549] Bypassing initializers with goto -- Is this a bug?
Rory McGuire wrote: d-bugm...@puremagic.com wrote: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3549 Don changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clugd...@yahoo.com.au Summary|Is this a bug? |Bypassing initializers with ||goto -- Is this a bug? --- Comment #1 from Don 2009-11-24 20:00:14 PST --- I don't know. That's an interesting case for safe D. In safe D, either the initializers must be executed, or bypassing them must be banned. The code below is an example of memory corruption. But as @safe isn't yet implemented (so far it only checks for use of asm, AFAIK), it's not a bug yet. - class Foo { int x; } @safe void foo() { goto xxx; Foo a = new Foo(); xxx: a.x = 8; } I would say that it is definitely a bug, if D is supposed to initialize memory to zero when it is allocated. The assignments obviously replace the initialize to zero, which makes sense except in this example. I can only think of goto being the problem how else could you skip the initialization. Perhaps the compiler should initialize to zero if there is a goto even if the initialization is overridden except for void initialization. This should even be allowed in D1 let alone D2 or SafeD. :) just my two cents. The quote that Stewart found makes it completely clear: this is an illegal use of goto, and it should fail to compile. Nice and simple.