I have a program that uses an immutable array, the contents of which are
known at compile time. Thus, ideally, I want it to be placed in
the .rodata segment of the program.
Firstly, I seem to remember reading that using an array literal in D will
always result in a heap allocation. Is this
On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 10:16:45 +, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
static immutable int[3] = [1, 2, 3];
..should of course be
static immutable int[3] a = [1, 2, 3];
-Lars
On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 06:16:45 -0400, Lars T. Kyllingstad
pub...@kyllingen.nospamnet wrote:
I have a program that uses an immutable array, the contents of which are
known at compile time. Thus, ideally, I want it to be placed in
the .rodata segment of the program.
Firstly, I seem to remember
On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 15:39:48 +0400, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
BTW, I'm all for making array literals immutable. You can always make
runtime-allocated arrays via a library function.
-Steve
I second that!
On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 07:39:48 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 06:16:45 -0400, Lars T. Kyllingstad
pub...@kyllingen.nospamnet wrote:
[...]
Secondly, if the above is not true, how can I verify that the array in
the following piece of code isn't allocated and/or copied
On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 16:21:08 +0400, Lars T. Kyllingstad
pub...@kyllingen.nospamnet wrote:
On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 07:39:48 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 06:16:45 -0400, Lars T. Kyllingstad
pub...@kyllingen.nospamnet wrote:
[...]
Secondly, if the above is not true,
On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 08:21:08 -0400, Lars T. Kyllingstad
pub...@kyllingen.nospamnet wrote:
On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 07:39:48 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Of course. If you realize that the expression [1,2,3] is not immutable,
then it makes sense.
Another example to help you think about it:
