Le 07/08/2012 14:15, Mafi a écrit :
On Monday, 6 August 2012 at 19:45:17 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
Le 06/08/2012 21:07, Mafi a écrit :
No dereferencing is done in the compiled code anyway. BTW, an «
address of » operation is done on the type mentioned above.
I don't get what you are saying here. For me there's an inherent
difference between a fuction and a function pointer. You shouldn't try
to conflate them in a system language in my opinion.
On any hardware, a function call will boil down to set up stuff on the
stack and branching, jumping, calling or whatever on the ADDRESS of
the function's code.
In other term, what is generated always involve the function's
instruction address. If you dereference that address, you get
instructions, but that hardly something useful to have at higher
levels because you can"t do anything with it anyway.
It's the same with an int on the stack, isn't it (literally on the
stack; not optimized into a register). To access it, one has to
dereference its address but you wouldn't like conflating int and int*.
The difference is between the address being a constant (maybe relative
to the stack) and being totally unknown. In my opinion this is a big
difference, also for functions.
...
This is basically what is done for objects, and with great benefice.
