Skip to content

variant regression: Make sure untyped pointers are scanned by the GC #10929

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
Inkrementator wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
+7 −6
Open

variant regression: Make sure untyped pointers are scanned by the GC #10929

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
13 changes: 7 additions & 6 deletions std/variant.d
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -37,6 +37,7 @@ Source: $(PHOBOSSRC std/variant.d)
module std.variant;

import std.meta, std.traits, std.typecons;
import core.memory : GC;

///
@system unittest
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -428,8 +429,8 @@ private:
}
else
{
// object will be intialized later. Using ubyte buffer in case `this()` is disabled
A* p = cast(A*) (new ubyte[A.sizeof]).ptr;
// object will be intialized later. Using malloc in case `this()` is disabled
Copy link
Contributor

@rikkimax rikkimax Jan 28, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

These comments don't appear to make a whole lot of sense given the changes that have taken place.

Please remove all of them.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@Inkrementator Inkrementator Feb 4, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I was trying to communicate that I'm using GC.malloc here because the constructor of a type might be disabled, but this would be fine because we don't care about the constructor, only the postblit

If you say this doesn't make sense, is this because I have an error in my logic, written the comment in a confusing way or is it because the comment is self evident and redundant?

A* p = cast(A*) GC.malloc(A.sizeof, 0, typeid(A));
}
*cast(A**)&target.store = p;
}
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -679,8 +680,8 @@ switchStmtTupAssign:
static if (is(A == U[n], U, size_t n))
auto p = cast(A*) (new U[n]).ptr;
else
// object will be intialized later. Using ubyte buffer in case `this()` is disabled
A* p = cast(A*) (new ubyte[A.sizeof]).ptr;
// object will be intialized later. Using malloc in case `this()` is disabled
A* p = cast(A*) GC.malloc(A.sizeof, 0, typeid(A));
// Emplace will run the postblit of `A` us, no need to do it manually, then
copyEmplace(*zis, *p);
*(cast(A**) pStore) = p;
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -789,8 +790,8 @@ public:
static if (is(T == U[n], U, size_t n))
T* p = cast(T*) (new U[n]).ptr;
else
// object will be intialized later. Using ubyte buffer in case `this()` is disabled
T* p = cast(T*) (new ubyte[T.sizeof]).ptr;
// object will be intialized later. Using malloc in case `this()` is disabled
T* p = cast(T*) GC.malloc(T.sizeof, 0, typeid(T));
copyEmplace(rhs, *p);
*(cast(T**) &store) = p;
}
Expand Down
Loading