On 03/02/2016 08:22 AM, Maciej Izak wrote:
we should do the things in proper way. that can't be explained as "by design".
while i do not understand all the deep reasonings and such, i question the "do
things in the proper way" comment... who says that delphi is "doing it in the
proper way"??
2016-03-02 23:38 GMT+01:00 Sven Barth :
> With your collection it's more that I feel uneasy with your
> implementation. In general I'm in favor of the addition... But this topic
> is definitely different.
>
> Maybe you need more help from my side?
> How can you know
Am 02.03.2016 20:02 schrieb "Maciej Izak" :
>
> 2016-03-02 19:30 GMT+01:00 Sven Barth :
>>
>> I can already tell you now that this part of your code will definitely
not be merged then.
>
> ok. no problem with that, I got used to, similar like many
2016-03-02 19:30 GMT+01:00 Sven Barth :
> I can already tell you now that this part of your code will definitely not
> be merged then.
>
ok. no problem with that, I got used to, similar like many other Delphi
compatible code - for example Generics.Collections. ;)
>
Am 02.03.2016 17:49 schrieb "Maciej Izak" :
>
> 2016-03-02 17:15 GMT+01:00 Sven Barth :
>>
>> This will not be changed due to backwards compatibility. This is not up
for discussion.
>
>
> No. Real argument please and technical detail. You can argue
2016-03-02 17:15 GMT+01:00 Sven Barth :
> This will not be changed due to backwards compatibility. This is not up
> for discussion.
No. Real argument please and technical detail. You can argue in this way
any buggy element in compiler. Any logical example where this
Am 02.03.2016 um 16:51 schrieb Maciej Izak:
2016-03-02 16:40 GMT+01:00 Steve Hildebrandt >:
This solution would leave one unable to aquire information about
non manged record fields.
So in my opinion either adding seperate
Am 02.03.2016 15:42 schrieb "Maciej Izak" :
>
> 2016-03-02 15:14 GMT+01:00 Michael Van Canneyt :
>>
>> That depends. RTTI contains all published fields, managed or not.
>> as Sven pointed out, the doubling is there for efficiency reasons.
>
>
> It can be
2016-03-02 16:40 GMT+01:00 Steve Hildebrandt :
> This solution would leave one unable to aquire information about non
> manged record fields.
> So in my opinion either adding seperate information for non manged fields
> or a simple renaming(making it clear what information to
Am 02.03.2016 um 16:32 schrieb Maciej Izak:
2016-03-02 16:07 GMT+01:00 Jonas Maebe >:
FWIW, our documentation explicitly mentions that our RTTI format
is not the same as Delphi's:
2016-03-02 16:07 GMT+01:00 Jonas Maebe :
> FWIW, our documentation explicitly mentions that our RTTI format is not
> the same as Delphi's:
> http://www.freepascal.org/docs-html/user/usersu87.html (7th bullet)
There is also in this point: "This should not be a problem
Maciej Izak wrote on Wed, 02 Mar 2016:
and I forgot to mention that TypeInfo(TRec) should point to init table or
to identical copy of that structure in rtti table for consistent data. For
second variant rtti table, may contain additionally data after standard
copy of init data.
FWIW, our
2016-03-02 15:54 GMT+01:00 Maciej Izak :
> 2016-03-02 15:42 GMT+01:00 Maciej Izak :
>
>> Delphi is storing full record RTTI data in other place without
>> confusion. Init rtti is untouched.
>>
>
> Ofc. init rtti is also untouched in FPC I mean using the
2016-03-02 15:42 GMT+01:00 Maciej Izak :
> Delphi is storing full record RTTI data in other place without confusion.
> Init rtti is untouched.
>
Ofc. init rtti is also untouched in FPC I mean using the same structure for
full rtti and init rtti as breaking thing.
--
Best
2016-03-02 15:14 GMT+01:00 Michael Van Canneyt :
> That depends. RTTI contains all published fields, managed or not.
> as Sven pointed out, the doubling is there for efficiency reasons.
>
It can be solved more correctly and also efficiency. Delphi is storing full
record
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016, Maciej Izak wrote:
2016-03-02 11:10 GMT+01:00 Sven Barth :
One could say that in case of FPC the name "ManagedFldCount" isn't quite
correct ;)
Maybe is good idea to adjust this? Storing unmanaged fields info as managed
fields in RTTI table
2016-03-02 11:10 GMT+01:00 Sven Barth :
> One could say that in case of FPC the name "ManagedFldCount" isn't quite
> correct ;)
>
Maybe is good idea to adjust this? Storing unmanaged fields info as managed
fields in RTTI table is a little confusing... There is no gain
Am 02.03.2016 08:50 schrieb "Maciej Izak" :
>
>
> 2016-03-02 7:56 GMT+01:00 Sven Barth :
>>
>> IT table is a subset that only includes managed fields while the RTTI
table also contains unmanaged ones. This way the helpers don't need to work
through
2016-03-02 7:56 GMT+01:00 Sven Barth :
> IT table is a subset that only includes managed fields while the RTTI
> table also contains unmanaged ones. This way the helpers don't need to work
> through larger records that only contain primitive types.
> If that isn't the
Am 02.03.2016 02:28 schrieb "Maciej Izak" :
>
> 2016-03-02 0:48 GMT+01:00 Maciej Izak :
>>
>>
>> RTTI table in most of cases includes also most of INIT table data
(probably full copy).
>>
>
> sidenote: at the moment the generation of RTTI table does not make
2016-03-02 0:16 GMT+01:00 Sven Barth :
> This is by design and your patch would break existing code anyway.
>
> The init RTTI contains merely those fields that need initialization
> (namely interfaces, strings and dynamic arrays) and which is used for the
>
Am 01.03.2016 23:44 schrieb "Maciej Izak" :
>
> 2016-03-01 23:20 GMT+01:00 Michael Van Canneyt :
>>
>>
>> Please report this in the bugtracker.
>
>
> Done, patch attached
>
> http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=29767
This is by design and your patch
2016-03-01 23:20 GMT+01:00 Michael Van Canneyt :
>
> Please report this in the bugtracker.
>
Done, patch attached
http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=29767
--
Best regards,
Maciej Izak
Index: ninl.pas
On Tue, 1 Mar 2016, Maciej Izak wrote:
2016-03-01 20:35 GMT+01:00 Maciej Izak :
when "TypeInfo" is used for managed record, then RTTI data for those
record is stored twice into executable file (useless). Should I report this
as bug? Maybe is some reason for that
2016-03-01 20:35 GMT+01:00 Maciej Izak :
> when "TypeInfo" is used for managed record, then RTTI data for those
> record is stored twice into executable file (useless). Should I report this
> as bug? Maybe is some reason for that behavior? Example code to generate
> extra RTTI
Hi,
when "TypeInfo" is used for managed record, then RTTI data for those record
is stored twice into executable file (useless). Should I report this as
bug? Maybe is some reason for that behavior? Example code to generate extra
RTTI bytes:
===
uses
typinfo;
type
TFoo = record
foo:
26 matches
Mail list logo