On 21/02/2011 00:24, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 16:23:14 -0500, Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote:
"Simon" <s.d.hamm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ijrdif$1nn6$1...@digitalmars.com...
On 20/02/2011 14:59, d coder wrote:
Greetings
I tried to initialize a struct member with a function pointer, and
found that DMD2 did not like it. Are not function pointers compile
time constants? And why they should not be?
Regards
- Cherry
No a function doesn't have an address until the .exe is loaded into
memory. And with Address space randomisation on 'doze there is no
reasonable way to make a function pointer a compile time value.
I didn't know Windows did that, I thought it was just certain versions of
Unix/Linux. Do you happen to know which version of Windows was first
to have
it?
Probably the first one with dlls? I don't see how else you could have
dlls, because you can't just say "this function will always be at
address 12345, and no other function anyone else ever compiles can take
that spot".
Vista. For any particular exe, you'll find that it's dependant dlls
alway get loaded in the same place. That's why buffer overflow bugs
(where/are) so easy to exploit.
That being said, I'm not sure why the OP's issue couldn't be solved --
clearly position independent code works (and that is statically
created), why couldn't a reference to that function also be created in a
struct initializer? Is it a limitation of the linker?
-Steve
You can't use the relative jump of POS code.
The offset to the function will be different at each call site.
You could make function pointers compile time constants if:
You disallow ASR
You disallow them when compiling to a dll
You disallow in-lining of any function of which you take the address
You disallow the linker from rearranging functions
You disallow the linker from merging duplicate functions.
You merge the compiler and linker
And it wouldn't work with template functions anyway as you can get
multiple copies of those.
That's a lot of stuff to give up.
--
My enormous talent is exceeded only by my outrageous laziness.
http://www.ssTk.co.uk
