WTF: dmd 2.066 vs. dmd 2.067 really dangerous code breakage

[Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 11:28:43 Daniel Kozak via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> This code compile fine under both versions:
>
> dmd (2.066, -debug -d):
> OK
>
> dmd (2.067, -debug -d):
> core.exception.AssertError at main.d(24): Assertion failure
> ----------------
> ./main() [0x46413f]
> ./main(_Dmain+0x86) [0x449996]
> ./main(_D2rt6dmain211_d_run_mainUiPPaPUAAaZiZ6runAllMFZ9__lambda1MFZv+0x1f)
> [0x467d53]
> ./main(void rt.dmain2._d_run_main(int, char**, extern (C) int
> function(char[][])*).tryExec(scope void delegate())+0x2a)
> [0x467ca6]
> ./main(void rt.dmain2._d_run_main(int, char**, extern (C) int
> function(char[][])*).runAll()+0x30) [0x467d0c]
> ./main(void rt.dmain2._d_run_main(int, char**, extern (C) int
> function(char[][])*).tryExec(scope void delegate())+0x2a)
> [0x467ca6]
> ./main(_d_run_main+0x1dc) [0x467c20]
> ./main(main+0x17) [0x464157]
> /usr/lib/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xf0) [0x7f4b8d440800]

What code does this? You just showed the output, not the code that triggers
the problem.

- Jonathan M Davis