https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21693
--- Comment #5 from [email protected] --- (In reply to kinke from comment #3) > The GC could presumably handle C++ classes like structs, where the > TypeInfo_Struct pointer is stored after the struct instance IIRC. For C++ > classes, it could store the D TypeInfo_Class pointer after the class > instance (but note that class instances have no tail padding, so some > padding might be needed for an aligned TypeInfo pointer). That would be fine. The maximum overhead would be less than (size_t.sizeof * 2), which is no big deal if it gets RAII working properly. Is it necessary to store a TypeInfo pointer for every instance, though? Garbage collected instances would all be allocated on the D side, so I would think that the TypeInfo data could just be stored adjacent to D's copy of the vtable. --
