On Monday 06 June 2005 13:56, Eljay Love-Jensen wrote:
> Hi Marcel,
>
> FD_SET is a C macro function that happens to work in C++.
>
> >any opinions? or did i miss something?
>
> Yes: #undef the FD_SET macro function, and create the C++ equivalent that complies to the rigorous settings you are using.
>
> Alternatively, use FD_SET in C code, and think compile your C++ code against your C code thunk layer.
yes it works, but not with the -W flags i mentioned.
e.g. compilation will fail on x86 but not on ppc
(given i as fd and rfds as fd_set)
FD_SET(i, &rfds);
is expanded on x86 architecture to
__asm__ __volatile__ ("btsl %1,%0" : "=m" ((&rfds)->fds_bits)[((i) / (8 * sizeof (__fd_mask)))]) : "r" (((int) (i)) % (8 * sizeof (__fd_mask))) : "cc","memory");
and on mpc/ppc architecture to
(((&rfds)->fds_bits)[((i->first) / (8 * sizeof (__fd_mask)))] |= ((__fd_mask) 1 << ((i->first) % (8 * sizeof (__fd_mask)))));
as i want to have ( as that seems to be possible without using supporting warning flags ) platform independ code,
i do not like the alternative you offered me, cause i would have to redesign a given wheel :)
would you like to read a
#ifdef X86VERSION
__asm__ __volatile__ ("btsl %1,%0" : "=m" ((&rfds)->fds_bits)[((i) / (8 * sizeof (__fd_mask)))]) : "r" ((static_cast<int>(i)) % (8 * sizeof (__fd_mask))) : "cc","memory");
#endif
#ifdef PPCVERSION
(((&rfds)->fds_bits)[((i->first) / (8 * sizeof (__fd_mask)))] |= ((__fd_mask) 1 << ((i->first) % (8 * sizeof (__fd_mask)))));
#endif
#ifdef MIPSVERSION
......
#endif
i think the advantages is that you just can just write
FD_SET(i, &rfds);
instead having those constructs mentioned above.
i do not want to do a compilers work, so i think if there isn't a applicable of FD_SET(...,...) in c++ and you
are forced to use c functions - the compiler should be
a) able to detect it on his own, or
b) let the coder declare critic sections
regards
marcel
Attachment:
pgpuokuiPeh51.pgp
Description: PGP signature
