http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10763
--- Comment #6 from [email protected] 2013-08-19 03:25:14 PDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > (In reply to comment #3) > > ... > > > The corner cases arise if you still disallow &x + 1. My guess is that > > > you're > > > allowing it in your implementation? > > > ... > > > > Yes, but dereferencing it is an error. Subtracting one results in the > > address > > of x. > > That is not the issue. The problem is that in C, simply creating the pointer > is > undefined behaviour. I guess I'll update my implementation eventually to disallow this. (Other related limitations are that it currently allows escaping addresses to locals and simply closes over them, array appends may cause non-determinism and pointers can be freely compared.) > ... > > > Is there really a use case for this unsafe behaviour? > > > > Make more code CTFE-able. > > But it's undefined behaviour. There is not really a reason why (&x)[0..1] should be UB. But I guess if you want to keep C behaviour and also keep the invariant that slices always point to arrays, this is indeed not fixable. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
