• Arcane Jill (14/15) Jul 20 2004 And quite right, too. This, then, is a compiler bug.
• Kris (8/23) Jul 20 2004 Jill: your access violation is likely due to the %s in the printf (shoul...
• Derek Parnell (9/28) Jul 20 2004 As Walter is philosophically against warnings, and returning such an

Arcane Jill <Arcane_member pathlink.com> writes:

In the manual (on page http://www.digitalmars.com/d/function.html) it says:

 "It is an error to return the address of or a reference to a local variable."

And quite right, too. This, then, is a compiler bug.












Access Violation

Arcane Jill

"Kris" <someidiot earthlink.dot.dot.dot.net> writes:

Jill: your access violation is likely due to the %s in the printf (should be
%.*s instead). That aside, you're absolutely right that the compiler should
attempt to trap this kind of thing ~ there's no clear benefit in letting it
compile successfully. I guess it's a question of priorities.


"Arcane Jill" <Arcane_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:cdih8m$17h9$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 In the manual (on page http://www.digitalmars.com/d/function.html) it

says:
 "It is an error to return the address of or a reference to a local


variable."
 And quite right, too. This, then, is a compiler bug.












 Access Violation

 Arcane Jill

Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 07:23:02 +0000 (UTC), Arcane Jill wrote:

 In the manual (on page http://www.digitalmars.com/d/function.html) it says:
 
 "It is an error to return the address of or a reference to a local variable."

 
 And quite right, too. This, then, is a compiler bug.
 










 
 Access Violation
 

As Walter is philosophically against warnings, and returning such an
address is only an *error* if you try to dereference it, then it is
consistant that D allows the coder to potentially do something stupid.

BTW, the access violation is because you used "%s" rather than "%.*s".

-- 
Derek
Melbourne, Australia
20/Jul/04 6:11:30 PM