On 7/1/12, Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 06/29/2012 02:17 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote: > > +<h4><a name="RTTI">RTTI and<code>dynamic_cast</code></a></h4> > > + > > +<p> > > +Run-time type information (RTTI) is permitted > > +when certain non-default<code>--enable-checking</code> options are > > enabled, > > +so as to allow checkers to report dynamic types. > > +However, by default, RTTI is not permitted > > +and the compiler must build cleanly with<code>-fno-rtti</code>. > > +</p> > > As discussed, I would say that RTTI is currently not permitted > but could be added later.
But isn't "could be added later" always true? Other folks have objected to such wording on the grounds that it adds no information, so I hesistate to add such wording now. > For the rationale, I would say that disabling RTTI saves some space > for classes with virtual functions when it isn't used, but could > be enabled if it would be useful in some part of the compiler. > And then remove the rest of the rationale. I think you're objecting to "Checking the type of a class at runtime usually indicates a design problem." I copied this text from the wiki. Does anyone object to me removing it? I'd like to get the document committed in some form so that we can make progress on the dependent activities. At present, none of those activities depend on this issue. -- Lawrence Crowl
