ldc executable crashes with this code

bauss jj_1337 at live.dk
Mon Feb 7 11:00:24 UTC 2022

On Saturday, 5 February 2022 at 03:02:37 UTC, forkit wrote:
> On Friday, 4 February 2022 at 15:58:19 UTC, Stanislav Blinov 
> wrote:
>> ..
>> ...
>> As others have already stated, casting immutability away is 
>> something that has to be supported, e.g. to interface with 
>> const-agnostic APIs. `@safe` requires such casts to be more 
>> verbose, with good reason.
> I concede ;-)
> That the compiler knows this is @safe:
> cast(char[])iStr.dup;
> and this is not @safe:
> cast(char[])iStr;
> is sufficent.

The compiler doesn't know what you think it knows in this 

It doesn't know what function you intended to use originally, in 
this case .dup.

So what do you expect the compiler to tell you when you do the 


It's not actually invalid code and only invalid under @safe IFF 
the result is mutated.

To the compiler everything is actually fine in that scenario.

The compiler also doesn't know that when you cast to char[] that 
you want to get a mutable duplicate of the string, because it 
doesn't have such a concept. It doesn't know .dup is actually the 
function you want to call, because there could be an ocean of 
different functions that you want to call that returns a mutable 
reference of the type.

In fact by giving it a cast you tell the compiler "I know what 
type this really is" and thus the compiler just says "okay". It 
won't complain when you tell it you know what you're doing, 
similarly to calling a @trusted function under @safe, you tell 
the compiler "I know this function is safe, even though it's not 
marked as safe" and thus the compiler will not actually complain 
if the function wasn't safe.

More information about the Digitalmars-d-learn mailing list