On 29/10/12 18:38, Walter Bright wrote:
On 10/29/2012 7:51 AM, Don Clugston wrote:> On 27/10/12 20:39, H. S.
Teoh wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 08:26:21PM +0200, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
>>> On 10/27/12, H. S. Teoh <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> writeln("how did the assert not trigger??!!"); // how
did we get
>>>> here?!
>>>
>>> Maybe related to -release?
>> [...]
>>
>> Haha, you're right, the assert is compiled out because of -release.
>>
>> But I disassembled the code, and didn't see the "auto x = 1/toInt()"
>> either. Is the compiler optimizing that away?
>
> Yes, and I don't know on what basis it thinks it's legal to do that.
Because x is a dead assignment, and so the 1/ is removed.
Divide by 0 faults are not considered a side effect.
Ah, that's interesting, I didn't know that.
I think the code would be
better written as:
if (toInt() == 0) throw new Error();
If you really must have a divide by zero fault,
if (toInt() == 0) divideByZero();
where:
void divideByZero()
{
static int x;
*cast(int*)0 = x / 0;
}
And that works because writes to 0 _are_ considered a side-effect?
Is that guaranteed to work?
