On Monday, 14 November 2016 at 17:15:43 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
What has happened is that the stack allocated for f() (and
since released) is still referenced by sb[]. In a weird way,
since you haven't called any other functions, that data is
still "valid"!
Thank you for the clarif
On 11/14/16 12:53 AM, Picaud Vincent wrote:
On Sunday, 13 November 2016 at 23:39:37 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Note that he is declaring an int[10] inside the function and then
returning it. The compiler must see that the int[10] will be returned,
and so it reuses the pre-allocated buffer
On Monday, November 14, 2016 06:19:25 Picaud Vincent via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> On Monday, 14 November 2016 at 06:10:38 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
>
> wrote:
> > I would have hoped that it would have complained about the
> > first one. I don't know why it isn't. It definitely results in
> > havin
On Monday, 14 November 2016 at 06:10:38 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
I would have hoped that it would have complained about the
first one. I don't know why it isn't. It definitely results in
having a pointer to memory that should no longer be referenced.
Yes I would have hoped too, because
On Monday, November 14, 2016 05:53:04 Picaud Vincent via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> On Sunday, 13 November 2016 at 23:39:37 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
>
> wrote:
> > Note that he is declaring an int[10] inside the function and
> > then returning it. The compiler must see that the int[10] will
> >
On Sunday, 13 November 2016 at 23:39:37 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
Note that he is declaring an int[10] inside the function and
then returning it. The compiler must see that the int[10] will
be returned, and so it reuses the pre-allocated buffer for
returning as the same address to avoi
On 11/13/16 12:52 PM, cym13 wrote:
On Saturday, 12 November 2016 at 12:16:02 UTC, Andrew wrote:
On Saturday, 12 November 2016 at 11:03:31 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
[...]
I thought that if you changed the function signature to int[10] f() to
return a static array, this should be returned by valu
On Saturday, 12 November 2016 at 12:16:02 UTC, Andrew wrote:
On Saturday, 12 November 2016 at 11:03:31 UTC, Mike Parker
wrote:
[...]
I thought that if you changed the function signature to int[10]
f() to return a static array, this should be returned by value,
and so should be safe to use, b
On Saturday, 12 November 2016 at 13:11:02 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
void func2(int[] foo) { foo ~= 10; }
Sorry, this should be (ref int[] foo)
On Saturday, 12 November 2016 at 12:16:02 UTC, Andrew wrote:
Bear in mind that static arrays are implicitly sliced when
passed to or returned from a function anywhere a dynamic array
is expected. If you modify f() to look like this:
int[] f()
{
int[10] sa;
foreach(int i, ref sa_i;sa){
On Saturday, 12 November 2016 at 11:03:31 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
[...]
You *have* created a dangling pointer. It's just that for such
a simple little program, the part of the stack where the
original array was allocated isn't stomped at the point where
you access it after the function call.
On Saturday, 12 November 2016 at 11:03:31 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
Thank you very much for your clarifications & explanations, I am
reassured to see that things work like in C.
I will also look the links you provided, thank you again for your
time.
Vincent
Thank you for your answer cym13.
I reproduced your result for:
On Saturday, 12 November 2016 at 10:45:23 UTC, cym13 wrote:
void f_test() {
auto sb=f();
sb[2] = 100;
writeln(sb[2]); // prints 100
int test[100];
writeln(sb[2]); // prints 0
}
now I am convinced of the invalid
On Saturday, 12 November 2016 at 10:33:05 UTC, Picaud Vincent
wrote:
Hi all,
Still learning... This time what surprised me is how static
arrays work.
I assume (is it true?) that for efficiency reason static size
arrays like int[10] are on the stack and do not involve dynamic
memory allocation:
On Saturday, 12 November 2016 at 10:33:05 UTC, Picaud Vincent
wrote:
Hi all,
Still learning... This time what surprised me is how static
arrays work.
I assume (is it true?) that for efficiency reason static size
arrays like int[10] are on the stack and do not involve dynamic
memory allocation:
Hi all,
Still learning... This time what surprised me is how static
arrays work.
I assume (is it true?) that for efficiency reason static size
arrays like int[10] are on the stack and do not involve dynamic
memory allocation:
First surprise: it is possible to share a static array:
void main(
16 matches
Mail list logo
