miscellaneous array questions...

Steven Schveighoffer schveiguy at gmail.com
Tue Jul 21 13:42:15 UTC 2020

On 7/21/20 8:34 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

> The others aren't wrong about stack size limits playing some role, but 
> the primary reason is that it is a weird hack for @safe, believe it or not.
> I don't recall exactly when this was discussed but it came up in the 
> earlier days of @safe, I'm pretty sure it worked before then.

I think this was discussed, but was not the reason for the limitation. 
The limitation exists even in D1, which is before @safe: 

I have stressed before that any access of a pointer to a large object in 
@safe code should also check that the base of the object is not within 
the null page (this is not currently done). This is the only way to 
ensure safety.


More information about the Digitalmars-d-learn mailing list