On 6/2/11 11:04 AM, Brad Roberts wrote:
So, is d (and thus dmd) supposed to deal with that case better? I assume no
since there's no case 1:, and that the test
should be changed to:
if (0) switch(1) { A51 a; default: }
In this case a should never be destroyed even on if (1) as no control
flow reaches it.
(On another vein, I'm surprised that that ever compiled. In C and C++ I
recall it's illegal to have a label followed by no code.)
Of course, the opposite is also interesting in terms of 'in what cases is a
actually constructed/destructed':
if (0) switch(1) { default: A51 a; }
Diff looks good to me, and the last line should indeed call two destructors.
Andrei
_______________________________________________
dmd-internals mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
