OSDev.org

hi
i'm read Brokentorn tutorial and at this page http://www.brokenthorn.com/Resources/OSDev14.html

he sais that we can compile c++ code as c code .
i wondered if i'ts possible , but i do not have the answer ,
then I ask you to

(sorry for my bad english ;/ )

Hello,

Would you mind letting me know where it says that? C++ is a completely different language -- it is most certainly not possible to do what is being requested. Most C code can be compiled as C++ (although not all) -- not the other way around.

It may also be worth noting that even if your code can be compiled as either C or C++, it may not have the same meaning in both of these languages.

i do the same in my c compiler, first i compile c++ code to c. however, not yet done with that part.

x=mylittlecat->dosomething(a,b,c,d);

translates to:

x=cats_function_dosomething(mylittlecat,a,b,c,d)

x=mylittlecat.dosomething(a,b,c,d);

translates to:

x=cats_function_dosomething(&mylittlecat,a,b,c,d)


etcetc
-object adresses must be delivered as a pointer.
-new translates to malloc, then constructor must be called.
-delete translates to free, before, destructor must be called.
-i suggest heap-created objects to translate to stack objects
-there is no object-oriented programing possible on hardware level, everything must be translated to procedural code. not a big deal.

Geri wrote:-new translates to malloc, then constructor must be called.

No, `new` translates to a call to the appropriate `operator new` (either global or member one, plus there's the `new[]` case), then calls constructor.

-delete translates to free, before, destructor must be called.

No; `delete` translates to a call to destructor, then calls the appropriate `operator delete` (either global or member one, plus there's the `delete[]` case).

-i suggest heap-created objects to translate to stack objects
-there is no object-oriented programing possible on hardware level, everything must be translated to procedural code. not a big deal.

What?

LLVM allows you to emit c, instead of some assembly code.
This is just another target emit language. Can be quite useful actually.
As long as one don't plan on inspecting the output c code.

Griwes wrote:

Geri wrote:-delete translates to free, before, destructor must be called.

No; `delete` translates to a call to the appropriate `operator delete` (either global or member one, plus there's the `delete[]` case), then calls destructor.

Shouldn't the destructor be called before the delete operator?

- Monk

D'oh; obviously.