C++ operators in gcc

C++ operators in gcc

[Tommy Vercetti]

Hi list

I was told that gcc by default, for every class creates operator =, and 
probably something else. This makes binary file bit larger than it suppose to 
be. Is it true, and if so, why this is the case ? Can gcc simply not generate 
that operator?

please CC me on replies. 
-- 
Vercetti

Re: C++ operators in gcc

[Ingo Krabbe]

Does this really make the binary file a bit larger.  I don't think so.  Every 
class you define (or structure with C) is automatically be able to be copied 
(in a flat manner of course) by the operator =.  I think that someone who 
told you meant that behaviour, that is part of the ISO definition as I 
suppose and as such not specific to gcc.
I assume there would be no single byte of code blow up for this behaviour.

BYE INGO

Am Freitag, 23. September 2005 23:48 schrieb Tommy Vercetti:
> Hi list
>
> I was told that gcc by default, for every class creates operator =, and
> probably something else. This makes binary file bit larger than it suppose
> to be. Is it true, and if so, why this is the case ? Can gcc simply not
> generate that operator?
>
> please CC me on replies.

Re: C++ operators in gcc

[John Love-Jensen]

Hi Tommy,

In C++, every class some freebies.  If you write this...

class Foo
{
};

...the compiler generates this...

class Foo
{
public:
  Foo();
  Foo(Foo const&);
  ~Foo();
  Foo& operator = (Foo const&);
  Foo* operator & ();
  Foo const* operator & () const;
};

(I presume the definitions of these methods are obvious.)

If you don't want the compiler to generate one-or-more of those functions,
you could explicitly declare them in a private section, and leave them
unimplemented.

HTH,
--Eljay

Re: C++ operators in gcc

[Ingo Krabbe]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 639 bytes --]

Cool Idea.

BYE INGO

Am Montag, 26. September 2005 13:19 schrieb John Love-Jensen:
> Hi Tommy,
>
> In C++, every class some freebies.  If you write this...
>
> class Foo
> {
> };
>
> ...the compiler generates this...
>
> class Foo
> {
> public:
>   Foo();
>   Foo(Foo const&);
>   ~Foo();
>   Foo& operator = (Foo const&);
>   Foo* operator & ();
>   Foo const* operator & () const;
> };
>
> (I presume the definitions of these methods are obvious.)
>
> If you don't want the compiler to generate one-or-more of those functions,
> you could explicitly declare them in a private section, and leave them
> unimplemented.
>
> HTH,
> --Eljay

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]