Am 02.06.2013 15:28, schrieb Rainer Schuetze:
On 02.06.2013 11:33, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
I think this is a very good idea. The only question is how complete this
RTTI should be. This again highly depends on what it will be used for.
For some users it might be ok to do a full RTTI, which will increase the
executable size significantly. Other users might prefer a minimal RTTI
or even no RTTI at all depending on the use case.
The RTInfo template is very usefull for many different tasks, the
question is if we shouldn't make the concept more generic so that you
can have multiple templates which behave like the RTInfo template. I'm
currently also using it for RTTI info see:
http://3d.benjamin-thaut.de/?p=25
As a number of use cases show up for the RTInfo template (the precise GC
also uses it), I think a simple approach for not stepping on each other
toes would be to declare a struct type RTInfoData, and add each
implementation as a member to this struct (not checked whether this
actually compiles):
struct RTInfoData
{
immutable(RuntimeReflection)* rr;
immutable(thMemberInfo)* th;
immutable(PreciseGCData)* gc;
}
template RTInfo(T)
{
immutable(RTInfoData) data = RTInfoData(genRuntimeReflection!T,
genMemberInfo!T,
genGCData!T);
enum RTInfo = &data;
}
and TypeInfo.rtInfo() would then return a pointer to RTInfoData instead
of void*. This doesn't make it modifiable from outside object.di, but I
have no idea how that could be possible to begin with (without
recompiling the runtime library).
Unfortunately the compiler sometimes doesn't force the generation of
RTInfo, but sets the m_rtInfo to 0 or 1 depending on whether the Type
contains pointers or not. I always wanted to figure out why that happens...
That is the obvious solution to the problem. Maybe we should get
something like this into drutime ASAP so that the RTInfo template
remains extendable even if a percise GC is used.
Kind Regards
Benjamin Thaut
