Re: Escaping ref to stack mem sometimes allowed in @safe?
On Friday, October 14, 2016 16:49:44 Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> This compiles. Is it supposed to?
>
> @safe ubyte[] foo()
> {
> ubyte[512] buf;
> auto slice = buf[0..$];
> // Escaping reference to stack memory, right?
> return slice;
> }
>
> Or is the escaping reference detection not intended to be 100%? Or
> something else I'm missing?
>
> Should I file @ bugzilla?
It's a long-standing bug:
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8838
But Walter has been working on @safety issues recently (particularly with
regards to stuff like parameters escaping, because of DIP1000), so a fix
should finally be coming.
- Jonathan M Davis
Re: Escaping ref to stack mem sometimes allowed in @safe?
On 10/14/16 4:49 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
This compiles. Is it supposed to?
@safe ubyte[] foo()
{
ubyte[512] buf;
auto slice = buf[0..$];
// Escaping reference to stack memory, right?
return slice;
}
Yes, this still is a problem, but Walter has a fix in the works.
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8838
This one is also fun:
ubyte[512] foo();
ubyte[] x = foo(); // compiles, but never is correct. Ever.
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12625
-Steve
Escaping ref to stack mem sometimes allowed in @safe?
This compiles. Is it supposed to?
@safe ubyte[] foo()
{
ubyte[512] buf;
auto slice = buf[0..$];
// Escaping reference to stack memory, right?
return slice;
}
Or is the escaping reference detection not intended to be 100%? Or
something else I'm missing?
Should I file @ bugzilla?
