search for: vandevoord

David Vandevoorde a écrit : > > I don't think those are _good_ reasons though: If one doesn't want a C+ > + function to be inlined, one shouldn't define it inline. > > You must not have written a lot of C++ template then. You don't have the choice in this case, just check your S...

On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 7:04 AM, David Vandevoorde <daveed at vandevoorde.com> wrote: > > On Oct 16, 2008, at 12:22 AM, Eli Friedman wrote: > [...] >>> The current consensus among CoreWG experts is that the words in the >> current standard (and those in the current WP) do not require distinct >> variables and te...

On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 6:16 PM, David Vandevoorde <daveed at vandevoorde.com> wrote: > > An object is created by a definition (_basic.def_) > > basic.def doesn't contain the word "create" nor words to that effect That should be [intro.object]: "An object is a region of storage. An object is created by a de...

On Wednesday 30 April 2008 17:26, David Vandevoorde wrote: > >> ...malloc() is not specified to access a volatile > >> object, modify an object, or modifying a file (directly or > >> indirectly); i.e., it has no side effect from the language point of > >> view. > > > > Daveed: > > > > Goo...

David Vandevoorde a écrit : > On Aug 27, 2009, at 3:07 AM, Cédric Venet wrote: > > >> David Vandevoorde a écrit : >> >>> I don't think those are _good_ reasons though: If one doesn't want >>> a C+ + function to be inlined, one shouldn't define it inline....

On Mar 24, 2008, at 3:18 PM, David Vandevoorde wrote: > > On Mar 24, 2008, at 5:40 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > [...] >> I don't see a good way to do >> full-line comments that works both if you run the preprocessor and if >> you don't. > > > Could you use "##" instead of "#"?...

On Apr 30, 2008, at 8:47 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: > On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 18:17 -0500, David A. Greene wrote: >> On Wednesday 30 April 2008 17:26, David Vandevoorde wrote: >> >>>>> ...malloc() is not specified to access a volatile >>>>> object, modify an object, or modifying a file (directly or >>>>> indirectly); i.e., it has no side effect from the language point >>>>> of >>>>&gt...

On May 1, 2008, at 12:47 PM, David Greene wrote: > On Wednesday 30 April 2008 20:01, David Vandevoorde wrote: > >> Correct. It's an extreme form of garbage collection, I suppose ;-) >> >> (In theory, it can also be assumed to fail -- because an >> implementation is allowed to make any call to malloc fail -- though >> that's probably not useful.) > > Y...

On Mar 25, 2008, at 1:08 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > > On Mar 24, 2008, at 3:18 PM, David Vandevoorde wrote: > >> >> On Mar 24, 2008, at 5:40 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote: >> [...] >>> I don't see a good way to do >>> full-line comments that works both if you run the preprocessor and >>> if >>> you don't. >> >> >> Co...

Sorry, for j On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 1:16 PM, David Vandevoorde <daveed at vandevoorde.com> wrote: > > Another valid implementation of malloc is one that actually returns a > non-null pointer in this case, and for such an implementation, a valid > reduction is "int main() { return 1; }". That reduction is IMO not > only vali...

On Aug 27, 2009, at 3:07 AM, Cédric Venet wrote: > David Vandevoorde a écrit : >> >> I don't think those are _good_ reasons though: If one doesn't want >> a C+ + function to be inlined, one shouldn't define it inline. >> >> > > You must not have written a lot of C++ template then. (Ha!) > You don't have the...

On Aug 26, 2009, at 2:31 PM, David Vandevoorde wrote: > > >> I know/hope that the proposal isn't for the inlinehint to be a >> synonym >> for "force inline", it would just raise the threshold to increase the >> likeliness that it would be inlined. The question is whether >> "something...

On Apr 30, 2008, at 7:17 PM, David A. Greene wrote: > On Wednesday 30 April 2008 17:26, David Vandevoorde wrote: > >>>> ...malloc() is not specified to access a volatile >>>> object, modify an object, or modifying a file (directly or >>>> indirectly); i.e., it has no side effect from the language point of >>>> view. >>> >>> Daveed: &...

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, David Vandevoorde wrote: > Note that more interesting optimizations are possible. E.g., it's > perfectly valid to transform: > > void f(size_t n) { > char *str = (char*)malloc(n); > // use str[0 .. 99 ] > free(str); > } > > into > > void f(size_t n) { > cha...

On Aug 26, 2009, at 4:09 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: [...] > > The second part of this is that there are a lot of reasons for things > to be defined inline in C++ even if we don't want it to actually be > inlined. I don't think those are _good_ reasons though: If one doesn't want a C+ + function to be inlined, one shouldn't define it inline. > For example,

On Oct 16, 2008, at 12:22 AM, Eli Friedman wrote: [...] >> The current consensus among CoreWG experts is that the words in the > current standard (and those in the current WP) do not require distinct > variables and temporaries to have distinct addresses per se. > > Then what's the alternative model? That if two complete objects can never be distinguished by observing

On Mar 26, 2008, at 1:31 PM, Óscar Fuentes wrote: > Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> writes: > >> BTW, -fpcc-struct-return solves the case that motivated this thread. > > -fpcc-struct-return is an ABI change, hence it requires "compiling the > world". Not acceptable. > > I'll be interested on hearing ideas about how to determine how a > function

On Wednesday 30 April 2008 20:01, David Vandevoorde wrote: > Correct. It's an extreme form of garbage collection, I suppose ;-) > > (In theory, it can also be assumed to fail -- because an > implementation is allowed to make any call to malloc fail -- though > that's probably not useful.) You just contradicted yourself. I...

If you're interested in the evolution of C++'s memory model, here are some papers on the topic: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2008/n2664.htm http://open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2429.htm http://open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2427.html A working draft for the next C++ standard is also available:

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Evan Cheng<evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > > On Aug 26, 2009, at 2:31 PM, David Vandevoorde wrote: > >> >> >>> I know/hope that the proposal isn't for the inlinehint to be a >>> synonym >>> for "force inline", it would just raise the threshold to increase the >>> likeliness that it would be inlined.  The question is whether...