https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15604

John Colvin <john.loughran.colvin@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|std.array.array on nested   |std.array.array of structs
                   |structs, weird corner case. |with template opAssign and
                   |                            |default initialised "new"ed
                   |                            |class member.

--

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15604

--- Comment #1 from John Colvin <john.loughran.colvin@gmail.com> ---
The problem comes from a deeper issue with static initialisers with indirections, which are just a nightmare.

Nonetheless, here's the fix: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/3952

--

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15604

David Nadlinger <code@klickverbot.at> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |code@klickverbot.at

--- Comment #2 from David Nadlinger <code@klickverbot.at> ---
As I pointed out in the GitHub issue, I'm not convinced that this is a regression. Isn't it just an accepts-invalid bug in the compiler that the struct declaration is considered valid in the first place?

>From looking at the codegen, I find it hard to imagine that the current
behavior (a single implicitly-shared object instance) would be what the user
would expect.

--

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15604

--- Comment #3 from John Colvin <john.loughran.colvin@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to David Nadlinger from comment #2)
> As I pointed out in the GitHub issue, I'm not convinced that this is a regression. Isn't it just an accepts-invalid bug in the compiler that the struct declaration is considered valid in the first place?
> 
> From looking at the codegen, I find it hard to imagine that the current behavior (a single implicitly-shared object instance) would be what the user would expect.


I agree and have since deleted all such things from the codebase I was working on. I also hit some weird linker errors with them that I was unable to minimise examples for, so good riddance.

On the topic of static initialisers with mutable indirections, what about these:

struct A
{
    int[] arr = [1, 2, 3];
}

or this:

Object globalSingleton;
struct B
{
    Object o = globalSingleton;
}

--

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15604

Walter Bright <bugzilla@digitalmars.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |bugzilla@digitalmars.com
            Summary|std.array.array of structs  |std.array.array of structs
                   |with template opAssign and  |with template opAssign and
                   |default initialised "new"ed |default initialised 'new'ed
                   |class member.               |class member

--

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15604

Martin Krejcirik <mk@krej.cz> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|std.array.array of structs  |[REG2.070] std.array.array
                   |with template opAssign and  |of structs with template
                   |default initialised 'new'ed |opAssign and default
                   |class member                |initialised 'new'ed class
                   |                            |member

--

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15604

Vladimir Panteleev <dlang-bugzilla@thecybershadow.net> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |dlang-bugzilla@thecybershad
                   |                            |ow.net
         Resolution|---                         |INVALID

--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Panteleev <dlang-bugzilla@thecybershadow.net> ---
(In reply to John Colvin from comment #3)
> On the topic of static initialisers with mutable indirections, what about these:

I believe all of those are invalid and should not compile.

I filed issue 17604 for this (even though it's probably a duplicate of another issue filed somewhere), so I think we can now close this one.

--