Bug 10017 – Can not assign to a Variant another Variant holding a bigger structure

Status
RESOLVED
Resolution
FIXED
Severity
normal
Priority
P2
Component
phobos
Product
D
Version
D2
Platform
All
OS
All
Creation time
2013-05-02T10:31:00Z
Last change time
2013-08-04T10:30:01Z
Keywords
pull
Assigned to
nobody
Creator
octavian.cacina
Blocks
9122

Comments

Comment #0 by octavian.cacina — 2013-05-02T10:31:15Z
--- import std.variant; struct S { int[9] s; } void main() { Variant v1, v2; // maximum payload size 32 bytes v1 = S(); // OK, the payload is allocated with new v2 = v1; // AssertError: target must be non-null } --- This error affects also the max size of a std.concurrency message, see #9122.
Comment #1 by octavian.cacina — 2013-05-02T10:55:55Z
Comment #2 by github-bugzilla — 2013-05-27T12:04:13Z
Comment #3 by david — 2013-05-27T18:08:14Z
This fixes the problem for me on x86_64 Linux. Thank you!
Comment #4 by mk — 2013-05-29T08:23:12Z
Still doesn't work on linux 32 bit.
Comment #5 by code — 2013-05-29T09:04:11Z
(In reply to comment #4) > Still doesn't work on linux 32 bit. Do you still get the "target must be non-null" error? Are you sure you are using dmd's HEAD version?
Comment #6 by code — 2013-05-29T09:55:40Z
This was only merged into the master branch but not into 2.063.
Comment #7 by mk — 2013-05-29T15:47:28Z
You are right, sorry for the confusion.
Comment #8 by code — 2013-05-29T17:59:37Z
(In reply to comment #7) > You are right, sorry for the confusion. It should have been merged into 2.063 though because bug 9122 was marked as regression.
Comment #9 by github-bugzilla — 2013-05-29T18:56:46Z
Comment #10 by k.hara.pg — 2013-05-29T18:57:19Z
(In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #7) > > You are right, sorry for the confusion. > > It should have been merged into 2.063 though because bug 9122 was marked as > regression. Ok. I pushed the fix to 2.063 branch.
Comment #11 by david — 2013-05-31T19:00:23Z
(In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #8) > > (In reply to comment #7) > > > You are right, sorry for the confusion. > > > > It should have been merged into 2.063 though because bug 9122 was marked as > > regression. > > Ok. I pushed the fix to 2.063 branch. Looks like the fix isn't in the 2.063 release binaries. At least not the Linux 64-bit ones.
Comment #12 by sumitraja — 2013-07-29T19:47:30Z
(In reply to comment #11) > (In reply to comment #10) > > (In reply to comment #8) > > > (In reply to comment #7) > > > > You are right, sorry for the confusion. > > > > > > It should have been merged into 2.063 though because bug 9122 was marked as > > > regression. > > > > Ok. I pushed the fix to 2.063 branch. > > Looks like the fix isn't in the 2.063 release binaries. At least not the Linux > 64-bit ones. Doesn't seem to be in the Windows 32-bit 2.063 release binaries either.