[Issue 690] ABI not fully documented
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=690 Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED --- Comment #10 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2010-11-08 18:11:50 PST --- http://www.dsource.org/projects/phobos/changeset/2139 Not perfect, but better. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 690] ABI not fully documented
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=690 --- Comment #9 from Tomas Lindquist Olsen to...@famolsen.dk 2009-06-08 03:10:48 PDT --- I'm not sure about the interface differences anymore, I think they might be fixed in DMD, in any case we didn't change the frontend code, just the backend. However, what happens when a class implements an interface is still not described in the spec. Especially the cases where multiple interface inheritance is involved, and the case where an interface is reimplemented, are not specified. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 690] ABI not fully documented
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=690 Brad Roberts bra...@puremagic.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bra...@puremagic.com --- Comment #8 from Brad Roberts bra...@puremagic.com 2009-06-07 15:56:03 PDT --- This bug needs to gain some specifics or, preferably, be broken into several smaller bugs. It's been open for a long time and it's not clear exactly what's left to be done. Thomas, the last comment was directed to you to add specifics about what LDC had done or changed related to interfaces. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 690] ABI not fully documented
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=690 --- Comment #7 from bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2009-03-12 03:57 --- What issues does DMD still have with interfaces? Did you fix the dmd source? --
[Issue 690] ABI not fully documented
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=690 --- Comment #6 from jlqu...@optonline.net 2009-03-11 23:45 --- I would argue that associative arrays need more definition than pointer to opaque type. If a compiler compiles a source file with an assoc array, and another compiler generates a reference to it, how will the 2nd compiler know how to use it? An API is needed to make this happen. Because assoc arrays are part of the core language, there needs to be a shareable interface, even though it can allow for different definitions. Only then can one compiler use the assoc array generated by another compiler, if they don't share the same core runtime library. --
[Issue 690] ABI not fully documented
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=690 --- Comment #3 from s...@iname.com 2009-03-01 08:21 --- On a quick look, I've found one thing that's puzzling me. In the ABI for interfaces, where does the object pointer itself come in? --
[Issue 690] ABI not fully documented
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=690 to...@famolsen.dk changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #4 from to...@famolsen.dk 2009-03-01 08:29 --- I think there should be some notes on what happens inside the class when an interface is implemented. It took some serious trial and error to get this working in LDC (we even fixed some issues DMD still has), but I'm not sure we're ABI compatible. --
