Mangle functions

Daniel Lohmann daniel.lohmann@informatik.uni-erlangen.de
Tue Jan 29 00:54:00 GMT 2008


On 28.01.2008, at 13:11, Ron Kreymborg wrote:
>> BTW: In your example you used a non-static method. You probably know
>> that you have to make sure that the this-pointer is passed  
>> accordingly
>> in this case.
>
> The interrupt class does not need a this pointer as it neither calls  
> other
> methods in its class or accesses any private class data, so the  
> interrupt
> method itself can correctly be non-static.

Well, "correctly" is a bit strong here. In fact, the behaviour is  
undefined and it is just a case of luck (read: compiler-specifica)  
that it works.  Whereas depending on compiler-specifica is acceptable  
for programming on this level, it is just not necessary in your case.

So why do you not just make it a class function (static) instead of a  
member function? They can be private as well, friends as well, their  
calling semantics is defined, and the *compiler* would make sure that  
you do not (accidentally) access any member elements. No  
disadvantages, but more safety.

Moreover, class functions can be given "C" linkage. Andrew is right  
with his comments that this would be the cleaner solution. The asm- 
Statement solution is, however, a suitable alternative if you want to  
encode the class name into the symbol name for scoping purposes, which  
becomes necessary if the IRQ handler methods should always have the  
same name in different driver classes.

Daniel



More information about the Gcc-help mailing list