Re: Templates in C++

mac@coos.dartmouth.edu (Alex Colvin)
Fri, 23 Jun 1995 03:42:48 GMT

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[4 earlier articles]
Re: Templates in C++ norman@flaubert.bellcore.com (1995-05-14)
Re: Templates in C++ davidm@flora.Rational.com (1995-05-16)
Re: Templates in C++ jgmorris@cs.cmu.edu (Greg Morrisett) (1995-05-17)
Re: Templates in C++ jplevyak@violet-femmes.cs.uiuc.edu (1995-05-17)
Re: Templates in C++ bill@amber.ssd.hcsc.com (1995-05-25)
Re: Templates in C++ kanze@gabi-soft.fr (1995-05-29)
Re: Templates in C++ mac@coos.dartmouth.edu (1995-06-23)
Re: Templates in C++ shankar@sgihub.corp.sgi.com (1995-06-25)
Re: Templates in C++ bill@amber.ssd.hcsc.com (1995-06-30)
Re: Templates in C++ collberg@cs.auckland.ac.nz (1995-07-12)
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: mac@coos.dartmouth.edu (Alex Colvin)
Keywords: C++, performance
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA
References: 95-05-081 95-05-125
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 03:42:48 GMT
Status: RO

One of the things that forces recompilation of C++ programs is that
class definitions must list all their (private) members.


Is the main reason for this the need for structure sizes at
compile-time? Would link-time be sufficient? Could structure and stack
frame sizes be computed at link time as the sum of constants generated
by separate compilations?


Are their many linkers capable of performing such arithmetic? Could
they be used to relax language restrictions?


--
Alex Colvin
alex.colvin@dartmouth.edu
alex_colvin@fostex.com
--

Post a followup to this message

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