Re: C++ in kernel (was Re: exception in a device driver)
Benjamin Scherrey (scherrey@gte.net)
Sun, 10 Jan 1999 22:05:18 -0500
A non-optimizing compiler is likely to pass that extra pointer and would be
correct in doing so. However, the only reason to ever declare a method as a
non-static member of a class is when the method needs to access data for that
classes specific instance. Its no surprise that the compiler would pass the
extra compiler and, in fact, as a user of that class, you would assume that the
compiler would be doing just that from a quick glance of the interface. I
thought the issue was that you couldn't always tell when "this" was passed or
not. This is not true. Furthermore, I cannot think of an example that makes any
sense where your example would occur.
regards,
Ben Scherrey
Alan Cox wrote:
> < prelude to example snipped >
> foo1.C
>
> blah->foofunc();
>
> foo2.C
>
> blahobject::foofunc()
> {
> printf("Hi");
> }
>
> a C++ compiler ends up passing "this" needlessly because it can't tell that
> foofunc of object blahobject need not know who it is.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/