-v1 doesn't assume std.gc.setV1_0()

[Tyler Knott]

Chris Miller wrote:
> Should -v1 assume std.gc.setV1_0()? I don't believe it does.
> 
> Some objects in some of my programs are being collected too early unless 
> I call std.gc.setV1_0(). I don't believe I'm doing any pointer voodoo 
> either, but it's possible.
> 
> Perhaps as a compromise, -v1 could assume std.gc.setV1_0() as long as 
> the new GC isn't considered stable.

The only change in the post-1.0 GC is that it doesn't scan numeric types for 
pointers (e.g. uint[]).  Are you sure you're not storing the pointers/references 
in a numeric type somewhere?  If you aren't, then try to create a test case and 
file a bug report at http://d.puremagic.com/issues/  The last bugs with the new 
GC should have been fixed in DMD 1.004/GDC 0.22.