This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Using C++ in GCC is OK
- From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, Robert Dewar <dewar at adacore dot com>, åææ <chiheng dot xu at gmail dot com>, GCC <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2010 18:17:25 +0100
- Subject: Re: Using C++ in GCC is OK
- References: <4C030228.firstname.lastname@example.org> <AANLkTimzVEXsE4vOZJuegnHFu-pVyNdKImcasoSX_ZDc@mail.gmail.com> <4C039253.email@example.com> <AANLkTikp-gTh4bCpAFYWhU7fR9tBTxOP6mQp9TAfideB@mail.gmail.com> <4C03EB8D.firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 10:02 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> I think virtual functions are on the edge; quite useful, but do result
> in the compiler adding a pointer to data objects and in uninlinable
> indirect calls at run-time. Therefore, I would avoid them in the
> initial subset of C++ used in GCC.
We do, of course, have one very big 'virtual function' table in gcc --
namely the target hooks. It would be a shame if that couldn't be made
into a proper class with virtual functions by some arbitrary rule --
it's a perfect example of when they should be considered.