d-bugm...@puremagic.com wrote:
 
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3549
> 
> 
> Don <clugd...@yahoo.com.au> changed:
> 
>            What    |Removed                     |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                  CC|                            |clugd...@yahoo.com.au
>             Summary|Is this a bug?              |Bypassing initializers with
>                    |                            |goto -- Is this a bug?
> 
> 
> --- Comment #1 from Don <clugd...@yahoo.com.au> 2009-11-24 20:00:14 PST ---
> I don't know. That's an interesting case for safe D. In safe D, either the
> initializers must be executed, or bypassing them must be banned. The code 
below
> is an example of memory corruption. But as @safe isn't yet implemented (so far
> it only checks for use of asm, AFAIK), it's not a bug yet.
> 
> -----
> class Foo { int x; }
> 
> @safe
> void foo()
> {
>    goto xxx;
>    Foo a = new Foo();
> xxx:
>    a.x = 8;
> }
> 
> 

I would say that it is definitely a bug, if D is supposed to initialize memory 
to zero when it is allocated.
The assignments obviously replace the initialize to zero, which makes sense 
except in this example. I can only think of goto being the problem how else 
could you skip the initialization.
Perhaps the compiler should initialize to zero if there is a goto even if the 
initialization is overridden except for void initialization.

This should even be allowed in D1 let alone D2 or SafeD.

:) just my two cents.

Reply via email to