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

[Tyler Knott]

Chris Miller wrote:
> "The only change" you refer to had side affects; some of which were 
> fixed, not sure if all. I don't think it was as simple as you make it 
> sound to be. 

The change to the GC *was* non-trivial, true, but on well-behaved code (which doesn't store pointers anywhere it 
shouldn't), all issues related to that change should have been resolved by DMD 1.005 at the latest.  I searched through 
the D Bugzilla database and there are no open issues related to GC mis-collecting objects.

> This is why I don't think it's considered "stable" yet; it 
> just hasn't been proven like the old one. You telling me to file a 
> possible bug somewhat proves my point.

Based on the amount of response to your original post, it seems you're currently the only person still having issues 
with the new GC.  Because the GC is so important to D, any bugs found in it get fixed very promptly (usually in the next 
release of DMD/Phobos after they're reported).  However, before a bug can be fixed, it must first be reported with 
enough information for Walter to reproduce and examine it.

If you think you've found a new bug in the new GC, which you likely have if your code isn't doing "pointer voodoo" (even 
unintentionally), make sure you're using the latest version of DMD and Phobos (currently 1.007).  If you're using the 
latest DMD, or upgrade and are still experiencing the bug, put together a simple test case and/or a good description of 
the circumstances where the bug appears and file it in Bugzilla (at http://d.puremagic.com/issues/), with a high 
priority and severity (because GC problems are).  This won't guarantee that your issue gets fixed, but it is a very big 
"first step."

Additionally, if you feel that -v1 should imply std.gc.setV1_0() then you should also file a bug report with a low 
severity.  I do think this would be a good compiler enhancement, but it's neither critical nor will it fix your problem 
with the new GC (which is the real issue here).