http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=69
--- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw <ibuc...@gdcproject.org> 2013-07-05 10:02:19 UTC --- The most likely sequence of events were that gdc support was added first (we were there first, what can I say? :) - then dmd support once its vector support stabilised. Some time during or after dmd support was put on, pure: nothrow: @safe: was put into the module. In any case, nothing has changed since std.simd was first brewed. Function purity/nothrow is never assumed, and can only go off what the built-in function symbol is marked as. Likewise with @safe, the compiler currently only determines whether to @trust a built-in function or not depending on if it has been marked as nothrow. Which is an interesting, and probably wrong way of inferring @safe-ty, but I suppose in one aspect no one has maybe tested it enough to find any holes in it yet. It seems safe is never a good assumption to make. :) We could guarantee @safe-ty for builtin functions that are intrinsically expanded by the compiler (have no equivalent library call). Will have to think about whether to assume pure/nothrow in that situation also. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are watching all bug changes.
