On Sat, 14 Jul 2012, Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 14 Jul 2012, at 08:00, Martin Schreiber wrote:
On Saturday 14 July 2012 07:50:58 Martin Schreiber wrote:
On Saturday 14 July 2012 01:44:39 Jonas Maebe wrote:
I've implemented an optimization that reorders the instance fields of
Delphi-style classes (and only of Delphi-style classes) to minimise
memory gaps caused by alignment differences and odd sizes. The effect
is the same as when you would change the order of the fields in the
source code to achieve this effect.
I sometimes need "cracker" classes in MSEide and MSEgui to fix bugs and
make extensinsions for FCL classes in order to access private fields
(examples TDataset, TParam, TField, TFiler, TReader, TWriter, TComponent).
Is it guaranteed that the local definitions have the same layout as the
definition in the FCL unit?
If you you use the same packrecords setting, yes (I doubt any such fcl units
contain packrecords directives though, in which case they'll use the default).
Hmm, up to now I listed in the cracker classes fields up to the last private
field I need to access so the cracker classes would not brake by changing or
adding successive fields in the original classes. I assume now it is
necessary to always list all fields of the original class.
If would you want to use that optimization, then yes. "Working around" the
type system of the language is however generally asking for trouble,
regardless of what reason you do it for.
Indeed. Maybe we can help by making some methods/properties protected ?
Michael.
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
