On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 13:21:22 UTC, bauss wrote:
Seems like it was only partially fixed then, specifically for
missing abstract methods, but not whether the signature was
correct or not.
Seems like a critical bug to me.
At least it's still present in dmd 2.098.
On Friday, 19 November 2021 at 20:27:11 UTC, frame wrote:
On Friday, 19 November 2021 at 18:14:03 UTC, Adam D Ruppe wrote:
I've gotten that before as a result of a compiler bug... I had
an abstract method that wasn't implemented but the compile
time error got swallowed by a bug and thus the
On Sunday, 21 November 2021 at 02:43:12 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
There are some offset arithmetic involved to get to the right
vtbl pointer but the pointer of an object cannot be stored
anywhere in the vtbl because there is just one vtbl but very
many objects.
Ok, so they mean by instance is
On 11/20/21 7:19 AM, frame wrote:
> I think this is true for an object instance. But from an interface
> instance, the object instance must be accessible somewhere?
Everything needed is available from the pointer to a class object (or
interface). There are some offset arithmetic involved to
On Friday, 19 November 2021 at 21:09:16 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
I am not sure that's correct. The way I picture it, the code
reaches the __vptr by following a pointer; so it's already
known. Additionally, I am under the impression that there is
only one __vptr for a given type, which all
On 11/19/21 10:04 AM, frame wrote:
> On Friday, 19 November 2021 at 15:46:41 UTC, Adam D Ruppe wrote:
>
>> The `destroy` function (as well as other class destruction) will null
>> out the whole vtable to help make use-after-free an obvious error.
>> Possible that happened to you.
>
> So, a
On Friday, 19 November 2021 at 18:14:03 UTC, Adam D Ruppe wrote:
I've gotten that before as a result of a compiler bug... I had
an abstract method that wasn't implemented but the compile time
error got swallowed by a bug and thus the null method made its
way to the binary.
You got it! It
On Friday, 19 November 2021 at 18:04:17 UTC, frame wrote:
So, a partial nulled table shouldn't exist, right? like this:
Indeed.
I've gotten that before as a result of a compiler bug... I had an
abstract method that wasn't implemented but the compile time
error got swallowed by a bug and
On Friday, 19 November 2021 at 15:46:41 UTC, Adam D Ruppe wrote:
The `destroy` function (as well as other class destruction)
will null out the whole vtable to help make use-after-free an
obvious error. Possible that happened to you.
So, a partial nulled table shouldn't exist, right? like
On Friday, 19 November 2021 at 15:37:59 UTC, frame wrote:
Is a null pointer entry in the __vptr[] valid or always a sign
for corruption/wrong cast somewhere? thx
The `destroy` function (as well as other class destruction) will
null out the whole vtable to help make use-after-free an obvious
10 matches
Mail list logo
