digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 11952] New: struct field initialization with postblit causes un-needed destruction
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (26/26) Jan 19 2014 https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11952
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (64/65) Jan 19 2014 https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11952
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11952 Summary: struct field initialization with postblit causes un-needed destruction Product: D Version: unspecified Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P2 Component: DMD AssignedTo: nobody puremagic.com ReportedBy: monarchdodra gmail.com Given a struct "B" with a field "sup" of type "A", where "A" has a postblit. Then intialization "sup" triggers a postblit (good), but also destroys the prior value of "sup" (useless). Just the way we can avoid "assign" on first initialization, postblit destruction should be avoided as well. From learn: http://forum.dlang.org/thread/xfmqyplfxmdmrnotdzil forum.dlang.org In the thread, the user see a wrong amount of reference counts because of this issue. -- Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jan 19 2014
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11952 monarchdodra gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|enhancement |normalhttp://forum.dlang.org/thread/xfmqyplfxmdmrnotdzil forum.dlang.orgActually, I'm bumping to bug. Here is a variant of the code in the thread: //---- import std.stdio; struct B { A sup; this(A a) { writeln("Here"); sup = a; writeln("There"); } } struct A { static int count; this() disable; //Note this this(int n) { writeln("A.this()"); } this(this) { writeln("A.this(this)"); } ~this() { writeln("A.~this()"); } } void main() { A a = A(1); writeln("Start"); B b = B(a); writeln("End"); } //---- A.this() Start A.this(this) Here A.this(this) A.~this() //WHAT??? There A.~this() End A.~this() A.~this() //---- Here, "A" has a disabled default init. Yet in B's constructor, "A.~this()" is clearly called on a default initialized instance, which should *never* (AFAIK) happen unless previously and explicitly initialized to A.init (not the case here). -- Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jan 19 2014