2007. június 25. 12.59 dátummal Daniel Lohmann ezt írta:
> 1) I am not sure if I understand your problem. Can you give an exampel
> for such an (automatically generated) destructore that implicitly calls
> delete?
>
It is just a test class:
class valami
{
public:
valami();
virtual ~valami();
virtual void kiir();
int adat;
};
The source:
valami::~valami()
{
}
Those instances of destructors are generated:
00000142 <valami::~valami()>:
142: fc 01 movw r30, r24
144: 84 e0 ldi r24, 0x04 ; 4
146: 91 e0 ldi r25, 0x01 ; 1
148: 91 83 std Z+1, r25 ; 0x01
14a: 80 83 st Z, r24
14c: cf 01 movw r24, r30
14e: 0e 94 67 00 call 0xce <operator delete(void*)>
152: 08 95 ret
00000154 <valami::~valami()>:
154: fc 01 movw r30, r24
156: 84 e0 ldi r24, 0x04 ; 4
158: 91 e0 ldi r25, 0x01 ; 1
15a: 91 83 std Z+1, r25 ; 0x01
15c: 80 83 st Z, r24
15e: 08 95 ret
00000160 <valami::~valami()>:
160: fc 01 movw r30, r24
162: 84 e0 ldi r24, 0x04 ; 4
164: 91 e0 ldi r25, 0x01 ; 1
166: 91 83 std Z+1, r25 ; 0x01
168: 80 83 st Z, r24
16a: 08 95 ret
> 2) If they aren't necessary anyway, why don't you just provide your own
> (empty) implementations of new and delete to avoid the inclusion of
> whatever runtime library?
It is a solution, but it just increases the number of unnecessary function
calls. The number of constructors/destructors is discussed in an other
thread, it would be another optimization step. As far as I understand, the
different constructors/destructors are useful for different purposes. If I
avoid using the new() and delete() operators, I can save their space. It
would be useful to disable the corresponding constructors/destructors in this
case.
Regards
Gyorgy Kovesdi
