Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2024 20:09:23 +0100
On Sun, Apr 7, 2024 at 7:36 PM Thiago Macieira wrote:
>>
> > We need more information in std::type_info, such as the 'sizeof'
>
> We do? Why? What are the use-cases? Why can't they store that information
> elsewhere? Why must everyone who uses typeinfo pay this extra payload penalty?
Well here's one use case in my paper on std::exception_typeid . . .
Open the below HTML link and scroll down to "As a stepping stone":
http://www.virjacode.com/papers/p3178.htm
There won't be an extra payload penalty if we first try to make an
exhaustive list of what's /already/ available on Itanium ABI and
Microsoft ABI.
I think the right way of going about this is to make an exhaustive
list for each ABI, and then to find the common subsection between the
ABI's. Here's what I've got so far for the Itanium ABI:
https://godbolt.org/z/q4a4PvPne
>>
> > We need more information in std::type_info, such as the 'sizeof'
>
> We do? Why? What are the use-cases? Why can't they store that information
> elsewhere? Why must everyone who uses typeinfo pay this extra payload penalty?
Well here's one use case in my paper on std::exception_typeid . . .
Open the below HTML link and scroll down to "As a stepping stone":
http://www.virjacode.com/papers/p3178.htm
There won't be an extra payload penalty if we first try to make an
exhaustive list of what's /already/ available on Itanium ABI and
Microsoft ABI.
I think the right way of going about this is to make an exhaustive
list for each ABI, and then to find the common subsection between the
ABI's. Here's what I've got so far for the Itanium ABI:
https://godbolt.org/z/q4a4PvPne
Received on 2024-04-07 19:09:32