The "no gc" crowd

[Brad Anderson]

On Tuesday, 8 October 2013 at 16:29:38 UTC, ponce wrote:
> On Tuesday, 8 October 2013 at 16:22:25 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>> It is not overblown. It is simply "@nogc" which is lacking but 
>> absolutely mandatory. Amount of hidden language allocations 
>> makes manually cleaning code of those via runtime asserts 
>> completely unreasonable for real project.
>
> Hidden language allocations:
> - concatenation operator   ~
> - homogeneous arguments   void (T[]... args)
> - "real" closures that escapes
> - array literals
> - some phobos calls
>
> What else am I missing?
> I don't see the big problem, and a small fraction of projects 
> will require a complete ban on GC allocation, right?

Johannes Pfau's -vgc pull request[1] had a list of ones he was 
able to find. It's all allocations, not just hidden allocations:

COV         // Code coverage enabled
NEW         // User called new (and it's not placement new)
ASSERT_USER // A call to assert. This usually throws, but can be 
overwritten
             // by user
SWITCH_USER // Called on switch error. This usually throws, but 
can be
             // overwritten by user
HIDDEN_USER // Called on hidden function error. This usually 
throws, but can
             // be overwritten by user
CONCAT      // a ~ b
ARRAY       // array.length = value, literal, .dup, .idup, .sort
APPEND      // a~= b
AALITERAL   // ["a":1]
CLOSURE

1. https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/1886