On 11/11/2010 10:15 PM, spir wrote:
Well, since the pattern is OK _after_ call to Tuple's constructor (which does nothing more than recording its sub-patterns, see below) and only gets wrong when qutting this(), I fail to see how Tuple could be cause of anything. Also, the corruption is visible _before_ calling match() (which here delegates to Tuple's check()).I understand your note about returning an object actually allocated on the stack -- but here there are only implicitely referenced objects (class instances). This would mean that D creates the 2 sub-patterns on the stack? But why those objects, precisely? (Also note that they are of different classes: one is here a "String", the other a "ZeroOrMore"). They are stored in an array. What's troubling is that the array elements, meaning the supposed subpattern addresses, have changed. Maybe the patterns themselves are still ok, but the array data only are corrupted? Oh, I may try to cast to String the memory area pointed inside this()....... Does not seem to work: I recorded the pointer read in this() (as String*) into a global; then in the test func: writeln("p: ",p); // ok, same address as in this() writeln(cast(String)(*p)); // segfault! Anyway, just in case my reasoning is wrong, here is the whole Tuple class: ==================================================== class Tuple : Pattern { /** pattern type for tuple of given patterns */ static string typename = "Tuple"; Pattern[] patterns; this (Pattern[] patterns...) { this.patterns = patterns;
You need to dup that. Arguments are passed on the stack.
