On 10/07/14 21:21, safety0ff wrote:
This isn't a plain old C function, it's an asynchronous signal handler.
I though the signal handler was just an example and this was a more
general question.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On 09/07/14 21:54, Brian Schott wrote:
The argument for
requiring @nogc on C library callbacks makes sense to me, so I'd like to
know if this was intentional.
Why shouldn't you be able to allocate GC memory from C?
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On Wednesday, 9 July 2014 at 22:20:16 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:
I'll create a pull request that rearranges a few more of these
attributes.
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/pull/879
Can I get somebody to look at this?
On Thursday, 10 July 2014 at 06:47:37 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
Why shouldn't you be able to allocate GC memory from C?
This isn't a plain old C function, it's an asynchronous signal
handler.
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/blob/master/src/core/stdc/signal.d
When @nogc was added to the top of that file, the type of sigfn_t
changed from void function(int) extern (C) @system nothrow to
void function(int) extern (C) @system nothrow @nogc.
This breaks some code
On 7/9/2014 12:54 PM, Brian Schott wrote:
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/blob/master/src/core/stdc/signal.d
When @nogc was added to the top of that file, the type of sigfn_t changed from
void function(int) extern (C) @system nothrow to void function(int) extern
(C) @system
On Wednesday, 9 July 2014 at 19:59:21 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
I agree that callbacks shouldn't throw. The problem is existing
code uses callbacks that aren't annotated with 'nothrow', and
we don't like breaking all their code.
I was talking about @nogc (added in April, so before the 2.066
On Wednesday, 9 July 2014 at 19:54:11 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/blob/master/src/core/stdc/signal.d
When @nogc was added to the top of that file, the type of
sigfn_t changed from void function(int) extern (C) @system
nothrow to void
On 7/9/2014 1:08 PM, Brian Schott wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 July 2014 at 19:59:21 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
I agree that callbacks shouldn't throw. The problem is existing code uses
callbacks that aren't annotated with 'nothrow', and we don't like breaking all
their code.
I was talking about
