[pooma-dev] Expanding Supported Explicit Instantiations

[James Crotinger]

I'm skeptical of a compiler removing it as well. My main point was that if
it really should be private, then WE can remove it by hand. 

Scoped macros sure would be nice.

  Jim


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Mitchell [mailto:mark at codesourcery.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 12:58 PM
> To: wdn at lanl.gov
> Cc: oldham at codesourcery.com; pooma-dev at pooma.codesourcery.com
> Subject: RE: [pooma-dev] Expanding Supported Explicit Instantiations
> 
> 
> >>>>> "Dave" == Dave Nystrom <wdn at lanl.gov> writes:
> 
>     Dave> I'm also curious whether Jim Crotinger's idea of making 'sv'
>     Dave> private in the hope that the compiler could optimize it away
>     Dave> was worth considering.
> 
> Probably not.  Compilers generally pay little heed to `private'.  In
> order to do the optimization, you would to prove that there is no way
> for the address of the static variable to escape the class, which
> requires looking at the bodies of all of the functions in the class.
> 
> --
> Mark Mitchell                   mark at codesourcery.com
> CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sourcerytools.com/pipermail/pooma-dev/attachments/20010523/4edc481b/attachment.html>