struct Vector{
/**/ Vector():
x(data[0]),y(data[1]),z(data[2]),
r(data[0]),g(data[1]),b(data[2])
{data[0]=0;data[1]=0;data[2]=0;}
float data[3];
float &x,&y,&z
float &r,&g,&b
};
typedef Vector Colour;
References... are real
Author
I've kinda presumed upto now that references would be optimised out by my good old friend gcc, but he seems to be compiling them in.
I'm wondering: Why it is references actually take up space when compiled & optimised. I mean surely the compiler should just be able to link to the object it references directly rather than using the equivilent of a pointer to store the address all the time?
For instance I thought the following would be a rather good idea:
surely a union could be made to play ball with what you wanted todo? I'm sure someone here posted something along the lines of what you are doing here a while back..
Author
*slaps head* The thought didn't occour to me @ all, yeah that is a perfect union job. lol ty
Your compiler might look at the structure like this:
At this time, the size of the struct must be calculated, e.g. if you put it inside another class:
So every reference has space reserved with the size of a pointer.
The implementation for Vector::Vector() might be in a .cpp file, not seen by class A.
Why don't you write:
struct Vector{ Vector(); // a constructor float data[3]; float &x,&y,&z float &r,&g,&b};At this time, the size of the struct must be calculated, e.g. if you put it inside another class:
class A {Vector vec;};So every reference has space reserved with the size of a pointer.
The implementation for Vector::Vector() might be in a .cpp file, not seen by class A.
Why don't you write:
struct Vector{ union { float data[3]; struct { float x, y, z; }; struct { float r, g, b; }; };};
There is no way any compiler will even attempt to optimize it, the usual time reference types may be optimized away is with function parameters in trivial use cases.
Also you can't use user-defined constructors if you use unions with arrays, if you want to construct the elements & have array type access you can use a static constant pointer to data members e.g.:
if you want to see some more pointer to data memeber tricks refer to this
Because anonymous structures are non standard compliant, its a compiler extension, not portable.
[Edited by - snk_kid on February 15, 2005 4:17:03 PM]
Also you can't use user-defined constructors if you use unions with arrays, if you want to construct the elements & have array type access you can use a static constant pointer to data members e.g.:
struct Vector3 { typedef size_t size_type;private: typedef float Vector3::* const vec[3]; static const vec v;public: float x, y, z; Vector4(float nx = 0.0f, float ny = 0.0f, float nz = 0.0f) : x(nx), y(ny), z(nz) {} const float& operator[](size_type i) const { return this->*v; } float& operator[](size_type i) { return this->*v; }};const Vector3::vec Vector3::v = { &Vector3::x, &Vector3::y, &Vector3::z };if you want to see some more pointer to data memeber tricks refer to this
Quote:Original post by nmi
Why don't you write:struct Vector{ union { float data[3]; struct { float x, y, z; }; struct { float r, g, b; }; };};
Because anonymous structures are non standard compliant, its a compiler extension, not portable.
[Edited by - snk_kid on February 15, 2005 4:17:03 PM]
The references can't be optimized away because their values are determined at run-time. For example, what if you have two constructors and they initialize the references differently.
There is a solution to this exact problem (vectors with .x AND [0]) on these forums somewhere, but I can't find the thread.
Quote:Original post by Extrarius
There is a solution to this exact problem (vectors with .x AND [0]) on these forums somewhere, but I can't find the thread.
struct vector3 { float x, y, z; ... float& operator[](size_t i) { return (&x); } ....};my original version is safer, standard compliant, and will can be easily optimized (proven in another thread).
Author
Thanks for the feedback *adjusts television set*
snk_kid: Thanks, but as simple & perfect as that solution is it still only uses 1 set of names for accessing the members (xyz)
when _the_phantom_ mentioned unions (something I don't use them alot @ all)...
Okay it might not be offical golden standards, but aren't gcc standards enough?
Any thoughts as to implementing this according to standards?
Quote:what if you have two constructors and they initialize the references differentlyDang, good point
snk_kid: Thanks, but as simple & perfect as that solution is it still only uses 1 set of names for accessing the members (xyz)
when _the_phantom_ mentioned unions (something I don't use them alot @ all)...
union{ float data[3]; struct{float x,y,z;}; struct{float r,g,z;};};Okay it might not be offical golden standards, but aren't gcc standards enough?
Any thoughts as to implementing this according to standards?
Quote:Original post by snk_kidActually, your solution is the one I was talking about. I clicked reply before you posted, but didn't actually post until after =-/
[...]my original version is safer, standard compliant, and will can be easily optimized (proven in another thread).
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
