Re: C++ virtual function calls

genew@mindlink.bc.ca (Gene Wirchenko)
Mon, 23 Oct 1995 09:14:46 GMT

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
C++ virtual function calls tim@franck.Princeton.EDU (1995-09-29)
Re: C++ virtual function calls cliffc@ami.sps.mot.com (1995-10-05)
Re: C++ virtual function calls dlmoore@ix.netcom.com (1995-10-14)
Re: C++ virtual function calls genew@mindlink.bc.ca (1995-10-23)
Re: C++ virtual function calls cliffc@ami.sps.mot.com (1995-10-25)
Re: C++ virtual function calls joe@sanskrit.ho.att.com (1995-10-30)
Re: C++ virtual function calls jplevyak@violet-femmes.cs.uiuc.edu (John B. Plevyak) (1995-11-09)
Re: C++ virtual function calls cliffc@ami.sps.mot.com (1995-11-05)
Re: C++ virtual function calls martelli@cadlab.it (1995-11-05)
Re: C++ virtual function calls bothner@cygnus.com (Per Bothner) (1995-11-06)
[2 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: genew@mindlink.bc.ca (Gene Wirchenko)
Keywords: C++, optimize
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
References: 95-10-029
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 09:14:46 GMT

          On hoisting function calls out of a loop:


          It seems to me that this could (read as "would") cause trouble where
the hoisted routine had static variables or (shudder) diddled globals.
Would this not be enough to result in compiler designers not taking the
chance or can checking for these cases be done efficiently (and
accurately)?


Sincerely,


Gene Wirchenko
--

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.