Am Wed, 13 Jun 2012 17:24:18 +0100 schrieb Iain Buclaw <ibuc...@ubuntu.com>:
> > I can check this, but the side of the issue when I checked some time > ago I saw was that the initialiser is a typeless constructor that is > raw casted into the type we are assigning it to, so one bad factor of > that is we are relying on the member layout to match what was created > by toDt. So DECL_INITIAL would do a type check? That would detect size mismatches of course and is probably a good idea. > > > 2 seems like it probably wouldn't be ABI compatible to dmd. I don't > > care if we break ABI compatibility, just wanted to mention that. > > > > > > 2 is more for better debug information for a class and interface > declaration's inheritance tree. Ever notice that you can't access > methods through the debugger, lest you want to ICE gdb? :-) > > There's a little bit of cludge and cleanup needed around that code > area anyway, so it's on my TODO. I haven't looked at GCCs inheritance implementation for C++ yet, maybe it's even possible to stay ABI compatible to dmd? Would be good to keep at least ClassInfo (as declared in druntime) consistent.
