[Issue 17060] betterC std.allocator
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17060 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P1 |P3 --
[Issue 17060] betterC std.allocator
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17060 --- Comment #3 from Илья Ярошенко --- https://github.com/dlang-community/stdx-allocator/pull/12 --
[Issue 17060] betterC std.allocator
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17060 Seb changed: What|Removed |Added CC||greensunn...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Seb --- >From the NG: > Mallocator contains/contained (is it fixed?) global `instance` member. So it > is/was not betterC. This is key betterC bug because Mallocator is the base > building blog for almost all possible BetterC allocators. -- Ilya (https://forum.dlang.org/post/ybibqtybjvqgbzruy...@forum.dlang.org) @Ilya: I don't think someone has fixed this already :/ --
[Issue 17060] betterC std.allocator
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17060 radu.raca...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||radu.raca...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from radu.raca...@gmail.com --- +1. Allocators are missing from betterC mode, and they are a very important improvement over C's malloc/free. I think scope(xxx) and struct destructors need to work in betterC mode as a mandatory requirement for allocator redesign. In my opinion they need to be split in 2 : C runtime (core?), and D runtime based - the C runtime based ones should be obviously usable from betterC and ideally the D runtime one should be constructed on the basic blocks provided by the C runtime implementation. Given the experimental nature of the allocatos package this would be a good time to revisit their design and improve their modularity --
[Issue 17060] betterC std.allocator
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17060 Walter Bright changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||betterC CC||bugzi...@digitalmars.com --
[Issue 17060] betterC std.allocator
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17060 greenify changed: What|Removed |Added CC||greeen...@gmail.com --
