On Nov 5, 2013, at 9:15 AM, Martin Nowak <[email protected]> wrote: > > Most of these are sound like either implementation or documentation bugs. > Please file them in bugzilla http://d.puremagic.com/issues/. > Generally we can't force implementations to provide checks that are possibly > expensive to implement. So it might be more appropriate to disallow using > non-GC pointer with the GC, but this needs some more thought.
Yes, please suggest implementation or documentation changes as seems appropriate. It’s safe to assume that every GC must know whether a given pointer is into memory it owns and whether it’s an interior pointer or not, since this is required for garbage collection. The bigger issue with non-GC pointers passed to GC operations is what the correct response should be. Some sort of empty or soft failure response or an exception. It’s been a while, but I think some of the requirements were established based on how memory was used inside Druntime. There, I believe a soft fail state was important in some cases.
