NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/comp/lang/cplus/15918

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-08 | 1.6 KB

Xref: sparky comp.lang.c++:15918 comp.std.c++:1513
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.std.c++
Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!metro!extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU!maxtal
From: [e-mail] (John MAX Skaller)
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: Hidden private parts of classes
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: extro.ucc.su.oz.au
Organization: MAXTAL P/L C/- University Computing Centre, Sydney
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 15:52:48 GMT
Lines: 23

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Klamer Schutte) writes:
>]But such knowledge is not necessary; the LINKER can decide the layout of
>]data in memory!  But alas, that would require new smarter linkers, and
>]then you couldn't use a cfront compiler.
>
>OK, that holds for global / static variables. But how for auto variables?
>These generally are efficient to use, but to be efficient, their size
>must be known at compile time.

    Why? Why cant the size be calculated by a smart linker
at link time? Why cant assembly output be made by the compiler
with 'sizeof_someobject' as a symbol yet to be determined?

>and thus can only a pointer to an object on the heap be used.

    NO, and I have SEEN it done otherwise in a Modula compiler,
I used it and it worked.

--
;----------------------------------------------------------------------
        JOHN (MAX) SKALLER,         [e-mail]
    Maxtal Pty Ltd, 6 MacKay St ASHFIELD, NSW 2131, AUSTRALIA
;--------------- SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING SOFTWARE ------------------