Richard Earnshaw wrote: >> I think virtual functions are on the edge; quite useful, but do result >> in the compiler adding a pointer to data objects and in uninlinable >> indirect calls at run-time. Therefore, I would avoid them in the >> initial subset of C++ used in GCC. > > We do, of course, have one very big 'virtual function' table in gcc -- > namely the target hooks. It would be a shame if that couldn't be made > into a proper class with virtual functions by some arbitrary rule -- > it's a perfect example of when they should be considered.
Ian has bravely taken on the task of C++ coding standards and he's more liberal than I am with respect to the subset to use. (That suits me fine, since I like virtual functions fine, and now I don't have to feel guilty about stuffing them down anybody's throat.) So, anyhow, it looks to me as if current consensus is trending in the direction you suggest... -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery m...@codesourcery.com (650) 331-3385 x713
