• 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

d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:

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: -------

d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:

https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11952


monarchdodra gmail.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|enhancement                 |normal




 http://forum.dlang.org/thread/xfmqyplfxmdmrnotdzil forum.dlang.org

Actually, 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: -------