@safe leak fix?
grauzone
none at example.net
Wed Nov 11 14:09:20 PST 2009
Walter Bright wrote:
> Consider the code:
>
> @safe:
> T[] foo(T[] a) { return a; }
>
> T[] bar()
> {
> T[10] x;
> return foo(x);
> }
>
> Now we've got an escaping reference to bar's stack. This is not memory
> safe. But giving up slices is a heavy burden.
>
> So it occurred to me that the same solution for closures can be used
> here. If the address is taken of a stack variable in a safe function,
> that variable is instead allocated on the heap. If a more advanced
> compiler could prove that the address does not escape, it could be put
> back on the stack.
>
> The code will be a little slower, but it will be memory safe. This
> change wouldn't be done in trusted or unsafe functions.
That's just idiotic. One of the main uses of static arrays is to _avoid_
heap memory allocation in the first place. Do what you want within
@safe, but leave "unsafe" (oh god what a pejorative) alone.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list