• Nick Sabalausky (11/11) Oct 14 2016 This compiles. Is it supposed to?
• Steven Schveighoffer (8/16) Oct 14 2016 Yes, this still is a problem, but Walter has a fix in the works.
• Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn (8/19) Oct 17 2016 It's a long-standing bug:

Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:

This compiles. Is it supposed to?

 safe ubyte[] foo()
{
	ubyte[512] buf;
	auto slice = buf[0..$];
	// Escaping reference to stack memory, right?
	return slice;
}

Or is the escaping reference detection not intended to be 100%? Or 
something else I'm missing?

Should I file   bugzilla?

Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:

On 10/14/16 4:49 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 This compiles. Is it supposed to?

  safe ubyte[] foo()
 {
     ubyte[512] buf;
     auto slice = buf[0..$];
     // Escaping reference to stack memory, right?
     return slice;
 }

Yes, this still is a problem, but Walter has a fix in the works.

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8838

This one is also fun:

ubyte[512] foo();

ubyte[] x = foo(); // compiles, but never is correct. Ever.

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12625

-Steve

Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn writes:

On Friday, October 14, 2016 16:49:44 Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d-learn 
wrote:
 This compiles. Is it supposed to?

  safe ubyte[] foo()
 {
   ubyte[512] buf;
   auto slice = buf[0..$];
   // Escaping reference to stack memory, right?
   return slice;
 }

 Or is the escaping reference detection not intended to be 100%? Or
 something else I'm missing?

 Should I file   bugzilla?

It's a long-standing bug:

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8838

But Walter has been working on  safety issues recently (particularly with
regards to stuff like parameters escaping, because of DIP1000), so a fix
should finally be coming.

- Jonathan M Davis