To dup or not to dup?

[Jürgen Herz]

Frits van Bommel wrote:
> Jürgen Herz wrote:
>> It also isn't enforced for C on Linux (gcc) though it also doesn't
>> crash. Anyways, that's C and D (resp. dmd) could do better.
> 
> With my Linux gcc it *does* crash:
> ---
> urxae at urxae:~/tmp$ cat test.c
> int main() {
>          char* str = "test";
>          str[0] = 'b';
> }
> urxae at urxae:~/tmp$ gcc test.c -o test
> urxae at urxae:~/tmp$ ./test
> Segmentation fault (core dumped)
> ---

Uh, sorry. I mixed up C and D and just wrote
  char a[] = "Test";
in the C test. That's different from []a on D of course.

> There are plans to add a better concept of non-modifiability to D,

Having a 1.0 I was under the impression such basics would have been
done. But if it's not I'm glad to hear it's worked on.

>> > On windows the result of that code is very interesting. Since it doesn't
>> > segfault, one can printf a and s after manipulation. And it's "Txst" in
>> > test() and "Test" outside.
> 
> Yes, it allows it to be modified, which is why it doesn't crash. 

Yes, but what I'm surprised is that s and a seem to point to different
memory (seem because I didn't look at the actual addresses - have to
make up for that when on Win again) since the string a was unchanged
even after s was changed in test().

Jürgen