On 9/28/16, 11:36 AM, "Greg Dove" <greg.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Thanks for clarifying. I see that you mentioned that originally now :) >I think if GCC is smart enough to follow the indirection between those >reflection field names and all possible uses of reflection it would be >quite impressive. I don't think it works as is, because if it wasn't for >some static fields that had '@export' on them which I had to change to >'@expose' to make them work, unless the original @export was preventing it >working. I might do a quick check of this sometime in the next couple of >weeks to see if I can remove some of the annotations and see whether it >works or not. I agree that the reflection data is unlikely to prevent renaming. But I think you can do static code-flow analysis and potentially find that a data structure is being used for dynamic access. > >I will check the deadcode elimination for relection info in helloworld >today > Please see about fixing the flex-falcon build first. I just passed the buck to you on that thread a few minutes ago. Thanks, -Alex
