Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2025 14:24:23 -0700
On Wednesday, 29 October 2025 07:32:32 Pacific Daylight Time Frederick
Virchanza Gotham via Std-Proposals wrote:
> But are we all in agreement that re-signing (or re-encrypting) a
> pointer is __not__ trivial ? And therefore, that all polymorphic
> object are __not__ trivially relocatable on arm64e?
There is no consensus.
Some are of the same opinion as you. I am.
Some others think that so long as there's a way to do it without calling out
to user code, it can be called "trivial".
I disagree because I don't want to wait for that operation. I want relocations
now. In fact, I want them in 2005, when Qt began doing them anyway. It's
memcpy/memmove, period.
Virchanza Gotham via Std-Proposals wrote:
> But are we all in agreement that re-signing (or re-encrypting) a
> pointer is __not__ trivial ? And therefore, that all polymorphic
> object are __not__ trivially relocatable on arm64e?
There is no consensus.
Some are of the same opinion as you. I am.
Some others think that so long as there's a way to do it without calling out
to user code, it can be called "trivial".
I disagree because I don't want to wait for that operation. I want relocations
now. In fact, I want them in 2005, when Qt began doing them anyway. It's
memcpy/memmove, period.
-- Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org Principal Engineer - Intel Data Center - Platform & Sys. Eng.
Received on 2025-10-29 21:24:39
