Menu
Search

Forums

Forum Index

Thread overview
Why not use the address of the TypeInfo symbol as TypeInfo.toHash()?
Mar 04, 2016
Yuxuan Shui
Mar 04, 2016
Walter Bright
Mar 04, 2016
Yuxuan Shui
March 04, 2016
Gravatar of Yuxuan ShuiPosted by Yuxuan ShuiReply
Yuxuan Shui
Gravatar of Yuxuan Shui


Reply
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?
March 03, 2016
Gravatar of Walter BrightPosted by Walter Bright
in reply to Yuxuan Shui		Reply
Walter Bright
Gravatar of Walter Bright
Posted in reply to Yuxuan Shui


Reply
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.
March 04, 2016
Gravatar of Yuxuan ShuiPosted by Yuxuan Shui
in reply to Walter Bright		Reply
Yuxuan Shui
Gravatar of Yuxuan Shui
Posted in reply to Walter Bright


Reply
On Friday, 4 March 2016 at 00:42:28 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> 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.

Hmmm, can we left _DxxTypeInfo_yyyy__initZ undefined in the shared libraries?