On Thursday, 10 March 2016 at 02:14:19 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 01:33:41AM +, Yuxuan Shui via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
[...]
You can't rely on invoking the compiler to link these objects,
because if you're using shared libraries, it will be the OS's
dynamic
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 01:33:41AM +, Yuxuan Shui via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> On Wednesday, 9 March 2016 at 22:26:38 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
> >On 03/09/2016 07:05 AM, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
> >
> >> Can we left TypeInfo symbol undefined in the shared libraries? i.e.
> >> D compiler will
On Wednesday, 9 March 2016 at 22:26:38 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 03/09/2016 07:05 AM, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
> Can we left TypeInfo symbol undefined in the shared
libraries? i.e. D
> compiler will strip out TypeInfo definition when creating .so.
> (Alternatively, we can have TypeInfo always
On 03/09/2016 07:05 AM, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
> Can we left TypeInfo symbol undefined in the shared libraries? i.e. D
> compiler will strip out TypeInfo definition when creating .so.
> (Alternatively, we can have TypeInfo always undefined in .o, and
> generate them in linking stage only when
On Tuesday, 8 March 2016 at 23:13:32 UTC, Anon wrote:
On Tuesday, 8 March 2016 at 20:26:04 UTC, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
[...]
[Note: I phrase my answer in terms of Linux shared libraries
(*.so) because D doesn't actually have proper Windows DLL
support yet. The same would apply to DLLs, it just
On Tuesday, 8 March 2016 at 20:26:04 UTC, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
On Monday, 7 March 2016 at 16:13:45 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On 3/4/16 4:30 PM, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
On Friday, 4 March 2016 at 15:18:55 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
[...]
Thanks for answering. But I still don't
On 3/8/16 3:26 PM, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
On Monday, 7 March 2016 at 16:13:45 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 3/4/16 4:30 PM, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
On Friday, 4 March 2016 at 15:18:55 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
[...]
Thanks for answering. But I still don't understand why TypeInfo would
On Monday, 7 March 2016 at 16:13:45 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On 3/4/16 4:30 PM, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
On Friday, 4 March 2016 at 15:18:55 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
[...]
Thanks for answering. But I still don't understand why
TypeInfo would
need to be allocated. Aren't typeid()
On 3/4/16 4:30 PM, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
On Friday, 4 March 2016 at 15:18:55 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 3/3/16 6:58 PM, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
On Thursday, 3 March 2016 at 23:51:16 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Thursday, 3 March 2016 at 23:46:50 UTC, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
Will typeid(a) is
On Friday, 4 March 2016 at 15:18:55 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On 3/3/16 6:58 PM, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
On Thursday, 3 March 2016 at 23:51:16 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Thursday, 3 March 2016 at 23:46:50 UTC, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
Will typeid(a) is typeid(b) yield different results than
On 3/3/16 6:58 PM, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
On Thursday, 3 March 2016 at 23:51:16 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Thursday, 3 March 2016 at 23:46:50 UTC, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
Will typeid(a) is typeid(b) yield different results than typeid(a) ==
typeid(b)?
No. Indeed, opEquals on TypeInfo just calls is
On Thursday, 3 March 2016 at 23:58:39 UTC, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
On Thursday, 3 March 2016 at 23:51:16 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Thursday, 3 March 2016 at 23:46:50 UTC, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
Will typeid(a) is typeid(b) yield different results than
typeid(a) == typeid(b)?
No. Indeed, opEquals on
On Thursday, 3 March 2016 at 23:51:16 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Thursday, 3 March 2016 at 23:46:50 UTC, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
Will typeid(a) is typeid(b) yield different results than
typeid(a) == typeid(b)?
No. Indeed, opEquals on TypeInfo just calls is itself.
But opEquals also has extra
On Thursday, 3 March 2016 at 23:46:50 UTC, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
Will typeid(a) is typeid(b) yield different results than
typeid(a) == typeid(b)?
No. Indeed, opEquals on TypeInfo just calls is itself.
Will typeid(a) is typeid(b) yield different results than
typeid(a) == typeid(b)?
15 matches
Mail list logo
