Re: c++0x pods and constructors
On Nov 6, 11:21 pm, Jerry Coffin <jerryvcof...@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <1c83cc8c-9e7a-457a-bf85-
cfd3c93ad...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, james.ka...@gmail.com
says...
[ ... ]
It's not quite that bad; you don't need active cooperation
with the C compiler. You do need a C compiler, however, and
you need to know what it does and generates in order to make
``extern "C"'' work in C++.
I was thinking primarily of the fact that anytime the C
compiler changes anything about its ABI, the C++ compiler
needs to know about it and take steps to compensate.
Fortunately, at least in most cases the ABI is fairly stable,
so this doesn't arise a lot in practice.
Or that there are two different C compilers on the system, and
they use different ABI's. Here, too, the case should be fairly
rare, due to the fact that most OS's today define their
interface in terms of C.
[ ... ]
One interesting idea that I've never seen done would be to
conditionally add convenience functions in the header, something
like:
struct Toto
{
// ...
#ifdef __cplusplus
void someFunction() ;
#endif
};
In practice, I'm sure that this will work, but formally...
In practice, it's likely to work at least as long as none of
the functions is virtual. A virtual function would stand a
good chance of causing breakage though...
It would almost certainly break something.
[ ... ]
Just curious, but what effect does this have on static
initialization using the agglomerate syntax. Can I still
write something like:
static X const table[] = { 1, 2, 3 };
and be guaranteed that the initialization precedes all code
that I've written (including code in constructors of static
objects)?
I haven't studied that in a lot of detail yet, but it looks
like there's a fair bit of new material to study.
Yes. And for various reasons, I've not been able to study much
in the last year or so,
--
James Kanze