On Friday, 8 September 2023 at 07:59:37 UTC, rempas wrote:
> I do have the following struct:
...
> That's some minimal code that I do have just to showcase it.
This is not ideal. Why? Because 99% of the time, a poster has come here with a problem they don't know how to solve, and have focused in on where they think the problem is. However, the problem isn't there. But us reading the description can only see what the poster sees, and either don't see a problem ("I'm just as confused as you are!") or know there is more to the story.
Not only that, but frequently not-complete code is... not complete. And people tend to focus on problems they can see (e.g. where is that _len defined?), frustrating the poster with "trivial" problems that are solved "in the real code".
Inevitably, there is a subsequent post with the real code, and that contains the problem.
The best thing to post is a minimally reproducing example. The next best thing is a link to a complex reproducing example. Which you have done later (I will take a look). I just wanted to point this out because it's a frequent problem on these forums.
> So, some times, this work will works, some others, it will give me the following error:
Fatal glibc error: malloc.c:2594 (sysmalloc): assertion failed: (old_top == initial_top (av) && old_size == 0) || ((unsigned long) (old_size) >= MINSIZE && prev_inuse (old_top) && ((unsigned long) old_end & (pagesize - 1)) == 0)
This is an internal message from glibc. It seems the malloc structure is corrupted.
> Is there any possible that there is a compiler bug? I do use ldc2 and betterC!
There is always a chance...
Now, critiquing your original code, I see red flags here:
> u64 _cap = 0; // Total amount of elements (not bytes) we can store
and then later:
> this(i64 size) {
this._len = 0;
this._cap = size;
ok, so size must mean the number of elements, not the number of bytes.
> static if (is(T == char)) { size += 1; } // Additional space for the null terminator
this._ptr = cast(T*)malloc(size);
Here, you have allocated size bytes for the array. Is this what is intended? Your comments suggest otherwise! If T.sizeof is 2 or more, then you still only allocate e.g. 20 bytes for a _cap of 20. but an array of 20 T's would require 40 bytes.
-Steve
Permalink
Reply
