RE: [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:address@hidden]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 12:58 PM
> To: address@hidden
> Cc: address@hidden; address@hidden
> Subject: RE: [pooma-dev] Expanding Supported Explicit Instantiations
>
>
> >>>>> "Dave" == Dave Nystrom <address@hidden> 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                   address@hidden
> CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com
>