Questions on C++
Author
I've got a few questions on C++
1. If you overload an operator does this work like a function
and creates the variables on the stack ?
2. If so can you inline operator overloads ?
3. If not would it be faster to use a inline method e.g. for a
vector class vector.addvector(vector v) instead of v1 + v2 ?
4. I have heard C++ is not portable to another sytem in some
cases were C can be ported. What is the reason for this ?
5. Should I try to avoid polymorphy and function pointers to
avoid a virtual table to make my code faster ?
6. Once I use a virtual table does it matter to code speed how
many virtual classes I use?
Thanks :)
Quak
ok, here are my answers:
It is a normal function that will be called at the place in your source where you use your overloaded operator.
Yes that is allowed.
No that would not be faster, but sometimes better to read.
Yes, a virtual table look up makes your code slightly slower.
I guess so. If you have many items in a list it takes longer to finde something in it (but I have never heard that this was the cause for problems)
-- constantin
Quote:1. If you overload an operator does this work like a function
and creates the variables on the stack ?
It is a normal function that will be called at the place in your source where you use your overloaded operator.
Quote:2. If so can you inline operator overloads ?
Yes that is allowed.
Quote:
3. If not would it be faster to use a inline method e.g. for a
vector class vector.addvector(vector v) instead of v1 + v2 ?
No that would not be faster, but sometimes better to read.
Quote:
5. Should I try to avoid polymorphy and function pointers to
avoid a virtual table to make my code faster ?
Yes, a virtual table look up makes your code slightly slower.
Quote:6. Once I use a virtual table does it matter to code speed how
many virtual classes I use?
I guess so. If you have many items in a list it takes longer to finde something in it (but I have never heard that this was the cause for problems)
-- constantin
6. The virtual function table is essentially an array of function pointers, and each virtual function is given an index. Calling a virtual function is the same as indexing an array (although they implement it slightly differently).
5) Avoid? No [smile] Unless you really need an extra speed. Otherwise polymorphism along with vtable is fast enough for almost all puposes. And if profiling shows up it's not, then remove it. But not unless profiling has shown up it's the real bottleneck.
EDIT [0]: Fixed the word "polymorphism". Thanks Oluseyi [smile]
Oxyd
[Edited by - Oxyd on October 18, 2004 12:53:22 PM]
EDIT [0]: Fixed the word "polymorphism". Thanks Oluseyi [smile]
Oxyd
[Edited by - Oxyd on October 18, 2004 12:53:22 PM]
Use virtual functions where appropriate. They don't really add overhead. Like I mentionned in another thread, in the Quake 2 source code, they actually imitate the behavior of virtual functions in C by using function pointers to specify which function is going to be called to update the behavior of a monster... The virtual functions are just an automatic way to solve a problem that presents itself naturally.
Quote:4. I have heard C++ is not portable to another sytem in someWhen the last full C++ spec came out in 1998, there was a long lag between then and the first fully conformant C++ compilers. Many implementations still ignore some of the dustier corners of the language (e.g. the export keyword) and in this way, C is more portable. This is especially the case with regards to embedded systems where g++ might not have been ported to a certain processor and one relies on Metrowerks Codewarrior for better or worse.
cases were C can be ported. What is the reason for this ?
C is a very simple language so there is generally a full compiler for it for every processor available. However, this doesn't mean the compiler for your anti-lock brakes firmware is going to compile Quake. So the distinction between language portability is largely moot.
Quote:Original post by Quak
3. If not would it be faster to use a inline method e.g. for a
vector class vector.addvector(vector v) instead of v1 + v2 ?
Just a tiny point... and probably not consequential enough to worry too much about... but...
Functionally, v1.addvector(vector v2) and v1+v2 are very different beasts. The former alters the value of the vector v1 and is equivalent to v1+=v2. The latter does not alter the value of either vector but returns the result of the addition.
Cheers,
Timkin
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
