This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: apple blocks extension
On Sep 15, 2009, at 9:04 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 09/15/2009 08:28 AM, Vincent R. wrote:
I just was curious to know if closures in apple gcc(called blocks
from
what I read) is
also in mainline.
What is the status about this extension ?
It is unlikely that this will ever be brought into GCC, since
it appears to be largely identical to the C++0x Lambda feature.
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2006/n1968.pdf
There are major differences between lambdas and blocks, though they
serve a superficially similar purpose. If you are interested, there
is a ton of discussion online. Here are the two biggest differences:
The first difference is that every instance of a lambda gives you a
value of a new (anonymous) type, which makes them mostly only useful
with templates. Blocks literals give values of a predictable type,
which means that you can pass them around to non-templates. This is
also why they "work" in C. Yes, I know that there are various adaptor
classes that can be used with C++ lambdas to help work around this,
but this is in inherent part of blocks.
The second major feature of Blocks vs c++ lambdas is that they can be
"copied onto the heap". This allows things like "Grand Central
Dispatch" to work: you can write code that executes blocks
asynchronously or on other threads/work queues (after the function
containing the block has returned). A simple example is:
void print_on_different_thread(int X) {
run_asynch(^{
printf("Hi %d\n", X);
});
}
With lambdas, the closure would be go out of scope when
print_on_different_thread returns, but blocks allows "run_asynch" to
extend the lifetime of the block.
Blocks and Lambdas have intentionally different syntax, allowing them
to coexist peacefully in the same compiler / language. They are also
superficially similar to nested functions, but have other sets of
benefits. For example, blocks don't require executable stacks etc.
-Chris