Re: reasons for preferring C over C++

From	Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups	comp.arch.embedded
Subject	Re: reasons for preferring C over C++
Date	2014-10-19 16:28 -0700
Organization	Nightsong/Fort GNOX
Message-ID	<7xsiijfxlu.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> (permalink)
References	(2 earlier) <caf18hF6lueU1@mid.individual.net> <7x4mv1tdyv.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <VUA0w.496001$_u1.143324@fx30.am4> <7x8ukd9f0c.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <KZ-dnWseYsinotnJnZ2dnUU7-L-dnZ2d@giganews.com>

Show all headers | View raw

Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> writes:
> I'm not sure if that's true now or not.
> gnu C has a way of defining a function as "link this only if you need 
> it" (with attribute ((__weak__)), IIRC).  It basically makes a function 
> act like a function in a library, even though it's been compiled into a .o 
> file.  If they use that method with templatized methods, then only one 
> will get included in the link, even if multiple copies are scattered 
> around in the object files.

I guess that can help a bit if only some of a template's methods are
used at any given type.  But, basically, there are two conceptual ways
to implement something like template methods: as polymorphic functions
with an amount of runtime dispatch on types (guaranteed safe, but takes
a slowdown from the dispatch), or as "macros" (no slowdown, but code
bloat, like from function inlining).  C++ uses the "macro" approach,
while with other languages (like Haskell and maybe Ada) it's up to the
compiler and can sometimes be controlled by the user.  So even with
((__weak__)) the bloat happens in the cases where the method is actually
used.

Thread

reasons for preferring C over C++ Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl> - 2014-10-15 19:21 +0200
  Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-10-15 10:36 -0700
    Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl> - 2014-10-15 19:48 +0200
      Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-10-15 21:25 +0100
        Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl> - 2014-10-15 23:28 +0200
          Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-10-15 23:40 +0100
  Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-15 10:58 -0700
  Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ upsidedown@downunder.com - 2014-10-15 21:03 +0300
    Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-15 11:11 -0700
    Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl> - 2014-10-15 20:26 +0200
  Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2014-10-15 20:44 +0200
    Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl> - 2014-10-15 23:30 +0200
      Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2014-10-16 18:19 +0200
        Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2014-10-16 23:12 +0200
          Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2014-10-17 13:25 +0800
          Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2014-10-17 18:43 +0200
    Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ "tim....." <tims_new_home@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-10-18 12:29 +0100
      Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-10-18 11:44 -0700
        Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-10-18 22:25 +0100
          Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-10-18 15:42 -0700
            Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2014-10-19 11:03 +0300
            Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2014-10-19 17:46 -0500
              Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-10-19 16:28 -0700
              Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Nobody <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2014-10-20 02:47 +0100
        Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ "tim....." <tims_new_home@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-10-19 09:34 +0100
          Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-10-19 17:00 -0700
            Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-10-20 08:50 +0100
              Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ "tim....." <tims_new_home@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-10-20 11:57 +0100
                Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-10-20 12:11 +0100
                Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ upsidedown@downunder.com - 2014-10-20 22:36 +0300
                Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> - 2014-10-21 00:36 +0000
            Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-10-20 08:52 +0100
            Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ "tim....." <tims_new_home@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-10-20 11:56 +0100
        Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2014-10-19 10:52 +0200
          Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-10-19 17:16 -0700
      Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-10-18 23:02 +0000
        Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ "tim....." <tims_new_home@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-10-19 09:45 +0100
  Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-10-15 22:12 +0200
    Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl> - 2014-10-15 23:35 +0200
      Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-10-15 19:10 -0700
      Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2014-10-16 10:34 +0300
        Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-10-16 10:10 +0100
  Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> - 2014-10-16 01:06 -0500
  Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ Anders.Montonen@kapsi.spam.stop.fi.invalid - 2014-10-16 08:32 +0000
    Re: reasons for preferring C over C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-10-16 20:54 +0200

csiph-web