On 06/15/2014 10:33 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
What Timon is saying is that not all memory safe code is verifiably
@safe.
In D, they are defined to be the same thing,
Since when?
http://dlang.org/function
"Function Safety
Safe functions are functions that are _statically checked_ to exhibit
_no possibility of undefined behavior_. Undefined behavior is often used
as a vector for malicious attacks.
Safe Functions
Safe functions are marked with the @safe attribute.
The following operations are not allowed in safe functions:"
I.e. the documentation has two (conflicting) definitions and none of
them is the one you claim there is.
so the statement makes no sense.
Then please indicate how to fix the documentation. If you are going to
claim the Humpty Dumpty privilege, I'll back off. Thanks.
On 06/11/2014 11:35 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
What's not provable? Why would bit copying a struct not be memory safe?
Since you claim memory safe is the same as verifiably @safe, you are asking:
What's not provable? Why would bit copying a struct not be verifiably @safe?
struct S{ int x; }
void main()@safe{
S s,t;
memcpy(&s,&t,S.sizeof); // error
}
So, what is it that you are trying to bring across?
