Internal linkage - equivalent of C++ global static and anonymous namespaces
Yesterday I discovered that a global static variable in D is just a global variable, with no special rule about symbol visibility and such. I've scrolled quickly through old discussions on the NG and read the relevant DIP: http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP22 It seems to me that nobody thought about reusing the module keyword for declaring symbols with internal linkage. It would look like: file foo.d: module foo; // module declaration module uint cantSeeMe; // internal linkage attribute, hidden symbol private uint can_See_Me; // private, but symbol still visible AFAIK, module keyword right now is only used for module declaration, and is not valid anywhere else. Would it make sense to use it in this context, too?
Re: Internal linkage - equivalent of C++ global static and anonymous namespaces
Why private members can't have internal linkage?
Re: Internal linkage - equivalent of C++ global static and anonymous namespaces
On Thursday, 12 June 2014 at 09:48:30 UTC, Kagamin wrote: Why private members can't have internal linkage? There has been some discussion about a few corner cases, see http://forum.dlang.org/thread/jlbsreudrapysiaet...@forum.dlang.org?page=2#post-irrbdrxordjawkryvrub:40forum.dlang.org and following posts.
Re: Internal linkage - equivalent of C++ global static and anonymous namespaces
On Thursday, 12 June 2014 at 09:48:30 UTC, Kagamin wrote: Why private members can't have internal linkage? tl; dr: because private provides zero guarantees that symbol won't be referenced in ABI context. It only controls direct language level access. It can possibly be done with analysis of all indirections but effort is not worth the gain. I think getting --gc-sections working out of the box is more worthy goal ( unfortunately last PR from Martin had no practical effect here :( )
Re: Internal linkage - equivalent of C++ global static and anonymous namespaces
On 12/06/14 11:48, Kagamin wrote: Why private members can't have internal linkage? It's currently possible to access private symbols through pointers. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: Internal linkage - equivalent of C++ global static and anonymous namespaces
On Thursday, 12 June 2014 at 14:23:59 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote: On 12/06/14 11:48, Kagamin wrote: Why private members can't have internal linkage? It's currently possible to access private symbols through pointers. And aliases with different qualifiers. And via return values. And with pretty much anything that does not require to type symbol identifier explicitly.
Re: Internal linkage - equivalent of C++ global static and anonymous namespaces
On Thursday, 12 June 2014 at 14:48:41 UTC, Dicebot wrote: On Thursday, 12 June 2014 at 14:23:59 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote: On 12/06/14 11:48, Kagamin wrote: Why private members can't have internal linkage? It's currently possible to access private symbols through pointers. And aliases with different qualifiers. And via return values. And with pretty much anything that does not require to type symbol identifier explicitly. http://blog.omega-prime.co.uk/?p=121
Re: Internal linkage - equivalent of C++ global static and anonymous namespaces
On Thursday, 12 June 2014 at 14:23:59 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote: On 12/06/14 11:48, Kagamin wrote: Why private members can't have internal linkage? It's currently possible to access private symbols through pointers. You don't need a symbol in the object file for that.
