--- 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.
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/1281
Commits pushed to master at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/commit/2dba41d0323f518ad41300e5bd3cf0ff5665029d fix issue 10017 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/commit/5ddf3bc19a240b77255c9583aee3d35a9157cd8c Merge pull request #1312 from dawgfoto/fix10017 fix issue 10017
This fixes the problem for me on x86_64 Linux. Thank you!
Still doesn't work on linux 32 bit.
(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?
This was only merged into the master branch but not into 2.063.
You are right, sorry for the confusion.
(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.
Commit pushed to 2.063 at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/commit/9a7627776e7cffa999f30e5a7450fb7f044a12f7 Merge pull request #1312 from dawgfoto/fix10017 fix issue 10017
(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.
(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.
(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.