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.