https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18016
--- Comment #15 from Steven Schveighoffer <[email protected]> --- (In reply to ag0aep6g from comment #13) > So LLVM would have to give you some value. It wouldn't be allowed to just > omit the whole access and everything that depends on it (as it apparently > does at the moment). How would it omit the return statement? The code above seems to compile with ldc and writeln(f()) seems to print something (0 in fact on my test). Where is the omission? Not saying your assertion is false, I just don't understand how it can omit everything that depends on an access of uninitialized data. --
