digitalmars.D - Why not use the address of the TypeInfo symbol as TypeInfo.toHash()?
- Yuxuan Shui (5/5) Mar 03 2016 After linking each _DxxTypeInfo_yyyy__initZ symbol should have a
- Walter Bright (3/7) Mar 03 2016 Because when working with DLLs (shared libraries) there may be more than...
- Yuxuan Shui (3/12) Mar 03 2016 Hmmm, can we left _DxxTypeInfo_yyyy__initZ undefined in the
After linking each _DxxTypeInfo_yyyy__initZ symbol should have a unique address, so why are we using hash of type name as TypeInfo.toHash()? I don't think this has anything to do with compacting GC. Is there something I'm missing?
Mar 03 2016
On 3/3/2016 4:29 PM, Yuxuan Shui wrote:After linking each _DxxTypeInfo_yyyy__initZ symbol should have a unique address, so why are we using hash of type name as TypeInfo.toHash()? I don't think this has anything to do with compacting GC. Is there something I'm missing?Because when working with DLLs (shared libraries) there may be more than one TypeInfo per type.
Mar 03 2016
On Friday, 4 March 2016 at 00:42:28 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:On 3/3/2016 4:29 PM, Yuxuan Shui wrote:Hmmm, can we left _DxxTypeInfo_yyyy__initZ undefined in the shared libraries?After linking each _DxxTypeInfo_yyyy__initZ symbol should have a unique address, so why are we using hash of type name as TypeInfo.toHash()? I don't think this has anything to do with compacting GC. Is there something I'm missing?Because when working with DLLs (shared libraries) there may be more than one TypeInfo per type.
Mar 03 2016