RTTI portability

[Nathan Sidwell]

Jim Dehnert wrote:

> That solution implies a statement that the non-Standard-defined parts
> of the hierarchy are not available to users.  Fine with me, but someone
> wanted to make the field names in the hierarchy normative, which has no
> point unless they expected them to be used outside the target runtime.
> In the absence of allowing user access, you're right -- there's no
> problem.
Yup, though I'd been assuming that allowing user access, was just allowing
read access to those fields, or the creation of objects of types within
the abi heirarchy. Allowing that would not create a problem.

Whether we permit users to derive from those types is a different question,
and would create difficulty with the current spec. Do we really want to do
that too?

We could allow read access to compiler generated type_info objects, and
prevent user creation/derivation of those types by making the dtors
private in the most derived types, and protected in the intermediate ones.

> It is a traditional part of the SysV ABI that libc is _always_ a DSO.
> I presume that we're extending that assumption to libcxa, though I
> guess we'd better say so.
Yes, I think we'd better ...

nathan

-- 
Dr Nathan Sidwell   ::   http://www.codesourcery.com   ::   CodeSourcery LLC
         'But that's a lie.' - 'Yes it is. What's your point?'
nathan at codesourcery.com : http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~nathan/ : nathan at acm.org