On 1/4/18 6:50 AM, thedeemon wrote:
On Thursday, 4 January 2018 at 11:05:25 UTC, tipdbmp wrote:
It seems that the '~=' operator "knows" that there's a reference to
'a's old memory and it keeps it around instead of freeing it.
It's just not its job to free that memory. That memory is freed
On Thursday, 4 January 2018 at 11:05:25 UTC, tipdbmp wrote:
What is your definition of a dangling pointer?
A pointer pointing to freed memory, which presumably '[0]'
should be because it reallocates.
It allocates a larger array, but the old version is not freed up
front. Right because there
What is your definition of a dangling pointer?
A pointer pointing to freed memory, which presumably '[0]'
should be because it reallocates.
It seems that the '~=' operator "knows" that there's a reference
to 'a's old memory and it keeps it around instead of freeing it.
I just don't
On Wednesday, 3 January 2018 at 22:22:06 UTC, tipdbmp wrote:
x doesn't seem to be a dangling pointer, how come?
What is your definition of a dangling pointer?
In the shown example we have a reference to a piece of memory
containing 'x', so this memory is not freed, it's used by the
program.
char * get_dangling_ptr() {
char[] a;
a.reserve(15);
a ~= 'x';
char *x = [0];
auto a_initial_ptr = a.ptr;
foreach (_; 0 .. 30) {
a ~= 'y';
//a.assumeSafeAppend() ~= 'y';
}
assert(a.ptr != a_initial_ptr, "a should've reallocated");
// trying
