Re: Why is GC.collect not @safe?

[Nick Treleaven via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Wednesday, 2 August 2023 at 13:27:50 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:

On 8/2/23 7:40 AM, Nick Treleaven wrote:
Presumably an allocation like `new T` (for a type with a @safe 
constructor) can be made anywhere a call to `GC.collect` can 
be made, which may trigger a collection. So why isn't 
`GC.collect` marked @safe?


It should be. Maybe historical reasons?

One possible (but wrong) reason is that destructors can be 
unsafe. But you are correct in that allocation can cause a 
collection.


OK, thanks. I've made a pull to add `@safe` for enable, disable, 
collect, minimize:

https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/15493/files

Now I'm wondering why those functions are marked `pure` - they 
must affect the GC's bookkeeping state.

Re: Why is GC.collect not @safe?

[Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On 8/2/23 7:40 AM, Nick Treleaven wrote:
Presumably an allocation like `new T` (for a type with a @safe 
constructor) can be made anywhere a call to `GC.collect` can be made, 
which may trigger a collection. So why isn't `GC.collect` marked @safe?


It should be. Maybe historical reasons?

One possible (but wrong) reason is that destructors can be unsafe. But 
you are correct in that allocation can cause a collection.


-Steve