• Yuxuan Shui (5/5) Mar 03 2016 After linking each _DxxTypeInfo_yyyy__initZ symbol should have a
• Walter Bright (3/7) Mar 03 2016 Because when working with DLLs (shared libraries) there may be more than...
• Yuxuan Shui (3/12) Mar 03 2016 Hmmm, can we left _DxxTypeInfo_yyyy__initZ undefined in the

Yuxuan Shui <yshuiv7 gmail.com> writes:

After linking each _DxxTypeInfo_yyyy__initZ symbol should have a 
unique address, so why are we using hash of type name as 
TypeInfo.toHash()?

I don't think this has anything to do with compacting GC. Is 
there something I'm missing?

Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:

On 3/3/2016 4:29 PM, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
 After linking each _DxxTypeInfo_yyyy__initZ symbol should have a unique
address,
 so why are we using hash of type name as TypeInfo.toHash()?
 I don't think this has anything to do with compacting GC. Is there something
I'm
 missing?

Because when working with DLLs (shared libraries) there may be more than one 
TypeInfo per type.

Yuxuan Shui <yshuiv7 gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, 4 March 2016 at 00:42:28 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 3/3/2016 4:29 PM, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
 After linking each _DxxTypeInfo_yyyy__initZ symbol should have 
 a unique address,
 so why are we using hash of type name as TypeInfo.toHash()?
 I don't think this has anything to do with compacting GC. Is 
 there something I'm
 missing?

 Because when working with DLLs (shared libraries) there may be 
 more than one TypeInfo per type.

Hmmm, can we left _DxxTypeInfo_yyyy__initZ undefined in the 
shared libraries?