On Monday, 18 November 2019 at 13:28:26 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
But it is rare and if you aren't specifically looking for it
knowing the details, it isn't right. And since the syntax looks
so normal it trips up a LOT of people.
I think the compiler should probably start to error on it, and
On Monday, 18 November 2019 at 13:22:20 UTC, rombankzero wrote:
Yeah, that appears to be what's happening. For the record, I
tried it on both Linux and Windows, and only got a segfault on
Linux.
Yeah, that's consistent with other strings too. (The D type
system calls both immutable, but the
On Monday, 18 November 2019 at 12:42:26 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
My guess is the compiler is seeing a static string and
incorrectly putting it in the read-only segment with the other
strings, and then writing to it thus triggers that segfault.
Yeah, that appears to be what's happening. For
On Monday, 18 November 2019 at 12:31:10 UTC, rombankzero wrote:
char[] array = new char[5];
It is almost always wrong to new things at module, class, or
struct scope, since this create it in the static data segment.
My guess is the compiler is seeing a static string and
incorrectly putting
Hi! Can anybody explain why this snippet segfaults when I try to
run it:
char[] array = new char[5];
void main()
{
array[0] = 'a';
}
It works fine if I move the array into main, or (strangely) if I
change its type to ubyte[] instead of char[], or if I merely read
the array without
