Rory McGuire wrote:
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.
The quote that Stewart found makes it completely clear: this is an
illegal use of goto, and it should fail to compile.
Nice and simple.
