[Issue 1348] New: offTi property of TypeInfo return empty array.

Jul 18, 2007

d-bugmail

Aug 14, 2007

d-bugmail

Aug 31, 2007

Feb 21, 2010

Dec 27, 2010

Dec 27, 2010

Dec 27, 2010

Dec 27, 2010

Jan 22, 2012

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1348 Summary: offTi property of TypeInfo return empty array. Product: D Version: 1.018 Platform: PC OS/Version: Windows Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: DMD AssignedTo: bugzilla@digitalmars.com ReportedBy: aaroncraelius@gmail.com The OffsetTypeInfo array returned by the offTi property of TypeInfo seems to be empty for classes that I have tried to examine. I have tested this with Tango and DMD 1.018 and 1.015 and with Phobos and DMD 2.002. --

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1348 gamerChad@gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|1.018 |1.020 ------- Comment #1 from gamerChad@gmail.com 2007-08-14 09:46 ------- I am testing with dmd+phobos on Windows. I found that this bug is present on dmd 1.004, 1.010, and 1.020. I also found that the offTi property does not seem to exist in dmd 1.003. The OffsetTypeInfo type is also not present in that version. --

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1348 deewiant@gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|1.020 |1.004 ------- Comment #2 from deewiant@gmail.com 2007-08-31 06:34 ------- Please set the version number to the oldest, not the newest, applicable. http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/bugs/bugzilla_usage_tips_10071.html --

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1348 Rob Jacques <sandford@jhu.edu> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |sandford@jhu.edu --- Comment #3 from Rob Jacques <sandford@jhu.edu> 2010-02-20 21:03:11 PST --- This appears to never have been implemented: From toobj.c in the DMD 2.040 source tree, at both 462-464 and 909-911: // offTi[] dtdword(&dt, 0); dtdword(&dt, 0); // null for now, fix later I ran into this in attempting to do runtime reflection for serialization, etc. without forcing the use if template mixins, etc. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1348 Gide Nwawudu <gide@nwawudu.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |gide@nwawudu.com --- Comment #5 from Gide Nwawudu <gide@nwawudu.com> 2010-12-27 10:56:02 PST --- I thought anything the compiles and does not work as defined by the spec is wrong-code, this would include outputting zeros instead of an offset. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

December 27, 2010

[Issue 1348] offTi property of TypeInfo return empty array.

Posted by nfxjfg@gmail.com
in reply to d-bugmail

Permalink

nfxjfg@gmail.com

Posted in reply to d-bugmail

Permalink

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1348


nfxjfg@gmail.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |nfxjfg@gmail.com


--- Comment #6 from nfxjfg@gmail.com 2010-12-27 13:08:04 PST ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I ran into this in attempting to do runtime reflection for serialization, etc. without forcing the use if template mixins, etc.


You better start using a real programming language then, such as Scala, Vala or Go.

Walter most likely disabled generation of this because it took too much space. The direction D2 is going is towards compile time reflection, and cutting down runtime reflection. (Even though compile time reflection will lead to much worse code bloat in the end, but the D designers don't know how to make sense.)

This bug should probably be closed as INVALID, but leaving it open is a good way to put a little stress in Walter & Co.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1348 Rob Jacques <sandford@jhu.edu> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |spec --- Comment #7 from Rob Jacques <sandford@jhu.edu> 2010-12-27 13:46:23 PST --- nfxjfg, as noted in this bug report, this isn't a regression: D has never had any form of runtime-reflection so Walter can't have disabled it, etc. To the best of my knowledge, the shape of D's runtime reflection is still pending. Gide, you're technically right, but I feel there's a big difference in severity between, not implemented yet and silently generating incorrect code. I have added the spec keyword, because it's probably a good idea to remove the Offset type info placeholders until D's runtime-reflection strategy is defined. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1348 Walter Bright <bugzilla@digitalmars.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bugzilla@digitalmars.com Severity|normal |enhancement --- Comment #8 from Walter Bright <bugzilla@digitalmars.com> 2012-01-21 19:53:10 PST --- It's not implemented yet, but is there as a placeholder. The shape of how introspection is best done is as yet undetermined. Hence I'll mark it as an enhancement request. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

Forums