Hi Fons,
can't you #ifdef on _MSC_VER? It's defined for MSVisualC++, whereas
VISUAL_CPLUSPLUS is not.
What about the two changes, the SetBranchStatus for TClonesArrays and the
protected std c'stor feature?
Regards, Axel.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-roottalk@pcroot.cern.ch
> [mailto:owner-roottalk@pcroot.cern.ch]On Behalf Of Fons Rademakers
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 3:26 AM
> To: Axel Naumann
> Cc: Roottalk@Pcroot. Cern. Ch
> Subject: Re: [ROOT] 3.01/00: Req for two changes + one bug for free
>
>
> Hi Axel,
>
> for Visual C++ you'll have to define -DVISUAL_CPLUSPLUS (which is
> now defined in root-config --cflags (in the CVS version)). We need this
> for future support of other Windows compilers.
>
> Cheers, Fons.
>
>
> On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 05:14:03PM -0500, Axel Naumann wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > there are two "promised" but - as of 3.01/00 - not yet
> implemented changes
> > I've found. Could you please add the changes at some point?
> >
> > * TTree::SetBranchStatus("SomeBranch") will not set SomeBranch
> consistently
> > if SomeBranch holds a TClonesArray (see
> > http://root.cern.ch/root/roottalk/roottalk00/3180.html)
> > * friend access macro for ClassDef / protected std c'tor not
> yet available
> > (see attached email conversation)
> >
> > Okay, and here's the bug:
> > For some reason the 3.01/00 version requests VISUAL_CPLUSPLUS
> to be defined,
> > _WIN32 or WIN32 is not good enough to get ANSICPP defined (see
> RConfig.h).
> > Thus using MSVC6 (which does not define VISUAL_CPLUSPLUS) I end up with
> > _QUOTE_(whatever) being evaluated to char* "name" - which is very
> > confusing...
> >
> > Cheers, Axel.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---- this is the attached email conversation...
> >
> > Hello George,
> >
> > As far as cint's concern, the feature has already been
> > implemented while ago. I am not sure about changes required in
> > rootcint, if there is any. Could you elaborate what is missing?
> >
> > Thank you
> > Masaharu Goto
> >
> >
> >
> > >Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 18:20:55 -0800
> > >From: George Irwin <gmieg@EGNEXT1.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
> > >Reply-To: gmieg@SLAC.Stanford.EDU
> > >To: rootdev@pcroot.cern.ch
> > >Cc: axel@fnal.gov
> > >Subject: Re: rootcint globals & standard construc
> > >
> > >Hi ROOT team, I was hoping to find this change in ROOT 3.00/06,
> > >but my protected default constructors still don't work with
> > >ROOT I/O. Is this change still in the works? I hope so.
> > >Thanks. George
> > >
> > >Begin forwarded message:
> > >
> > >Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 20:04:51 +0900
> > >From: Masaharu Goto <MXJ02154@nifty.ne.jp>
> > >Subject: RE: rootcint globals & standard construc
> > >To: axel@fnal.gov, rootdev@pcroot.cern.ch
> > >Cc: gmieg@EGNEXT1.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
> > >
> > >Hello Alex, Rene and Fons,
> > >
> > >I've been working to allow private constructor access in
> > >order to enable ROOT streamer. I implemented an experimental
> > >code in cint5.14.74 which I will copy next week.
> > >
> > >
> > >One change is needed on ROOT file. Please refer to the attached
> > >
> > >Rtypes.h. You need to add a macro ProtectedAccess(name) in a
> > >
> > >couple of location. This change should be harmless for current
> > >version. So, you can make this change immediately.
> > >
> > >Rootcint will create a new file [dictfile]P.h
> > >This file is an automatically created friend declaration
> > >for private member access. The macro is called within
> > >modified ClassDef() macro.
> > >
> > >
> > > $ rootcint -f mydict.cxx -c user.h LinkDef.h
> > > >>>> mydictP.h is created
> > >
> > >And user header must include this as follows
> > >
> > > // user.h
> > > #ifndef __MAKECINT__ // must be enclosed by this
> > > #include "mydictP.h"
> > > #endif
> > > class A : public TObject {
> > > private:
> > > A();
> > >
> > > ClassDef(A,1); // macro PrivateAccess(A) is called inside
> > > };
> > >
> > >And new pragma link statement has to be added in LinkDef.h
> > >
> > > // LinkDef.h
> > > #pragma link C++ class+private A;
> > >
> > >
> > >Please test this next week when I'll copy 5.14.74.
> > >
> > >Masaharu Goto
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 12:13:23 -0600
> > >>From: "Axel Naumann" <a.naumann@worldnet.att.net>
> > >>Reply-To: <axel@fnal.gov>
> > >>To: "Masaharu Goto" <MXJ02154@nifty.ne.jp>
> > >>Cc: <gmieg@EGNEXT1.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
> > >>Subject: RE: rootcint globals & standard constructor
> > >>
> > >>Dear Masaharu,
> > >>
> > >>this is a fantastic idea! Yes, and you got me exactly right, this is
> > >exactly
> > >>the problem we are struggeling with. Okay, I will try to add a macro
> > >>definition and I will tell you what it looks like and how it works.
> > >Thanks a
> > >>lot!
> > >>
> > >>Best regards,
> > >>Axel.
> > >>
> > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>> From: Masaharu Goto [mailto:MXJ02154@nifty.ne.jp]
> > >>> Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2001 8:46 AM
> > >>> To: axel@fnal.gov
> > >>> Cc: gmieg@EGNEXT1.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
> > >>> Subject: RE:rootcint globals & standard constructor
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Hello Alex,
> > >>>
> > >>> Thank you for your idea. This is quite logical and sounds very
> > >>> interesting.
> > >>> Yes, this issue belongs to CINT.
> > >>>
> > >>> As I understand your needs ..
> > >>>
> > >>> 1) You have a class with private constructor which needs to be
> > >>> instantiated
> > >>> in limited situation. This is achieved by friend declaration.
> > >>> 2) You want to use ROOT streamer. For doing so, ROOT needs to
> > >>> call the prvate
> > >>> construction which is not possible now.
> > >>> 3) You want to allow ROOT streamer to use private constructor,
> > >>> but want to
> > >>> keep privacy for other usage.
> > >>>
> > >>> Am I correct?
> > >>>
> > >>> Unfortunately, the wrapper functions has to be global and
> > >declaraing
> > >>> TCINT as a friend class will not help either.
> > >>>
> > >>> - Wrapper functions has to be global because it's pointer has to
> > >>> be registered
> > >>> into Cint dictionary which is exported from DLL. If it is a
> > >>> member function
> > >>> ,
> > >>> Cint needs to deal with a generic pointer to member function.
> > >>> Such definitio
> > >>> n
> > >>> does not exist in C++. Maybe there is a way to workaround but
> > >>> it is not
> > >>> simple anyway, cheating compiler in some sense.
> > >>> - The wrapper functions are generated by rootcint. So, name of the
> > >wrapper
> > >>> function is not determined until rootcint is used. If you expect
> > >TCINT
> > >>> class to have a fixed definition, we can not include the
> > >>> wrapper functions
> > >>> as member of TCINT.
> > >>>
> > >>> If this is really important, a better way would be to automate
> > >friend
> > >>> declaration so you don't need to do it manually. For example, we
> > >>> could add
> > >>> a macro in ClassDef, such as
> > >>>
> > >>> #define ClassDef(name,x) \
> > >>> .
> > >>> PrivateAccess(name)
> > >>>
> > >>> And in the dictinoary, rootcint generates code like this.
> > >>>
> > >>> #define PrivateAccess(name) PrivateAccess_##name
> > >>> #define PrivateAccess_MyClass1
> > >\
> > >>> friend int G__MyClass1_MyClass1_0_0(.......); \
> > >>> friend int G__MyClass1_PrivateFunc_0_1(.......);
> > >>>
> > >>> This way, no change is needed to user code.
> > >>> There are a couple of technical issues. More investigation is
> > >needed.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thank you
> > >>> Masaharu Goto
> > >>>
> > >>> >Dear Masaharu,
> > >>> >
> > >>> >maybe you have heard that some people were discussing the
> > >>> limitation to have
> > >>> >_public_ standard constructors to be able to use the dictionary
> > >wrapped
> > >>> >classes with e.g. ROOT streamers, TTrees etc. The problem arises
> > >when one
> > >>> >wants to restrict the ability of the user of a library to
> > >construct new
> > >>> >objects - for that one must be able to declare the c'stor
> > >>> private. We have
> > >>> >learnt that the actual "new MyObj()" call is wrapped into a
> > >>> global function,
> > >>> >called G__MyObj_N_M, where N and M are numbers, as generated by
> > >>> rootcint. So
> > >>> >of course one can define the std c'stor as private and add all
> > >the global
> > >>> >functions as friends. But this is a) very time consuming and b)
> > >>> very hard to
> > >>> >read & understand. Now of course it would be much much nicer to
> > >>> have all the
> > >>> >globals wrapped into one class (e.g. a singleton), so one could
> > >>> simply add
> > >>> >e.g. "friend TCINT" (maybe even in the ClassDef macro).
> > >>> >
> > >>> >I know this would be a horrible work: A lot of work and a very
> > >annoying
> > >>> >work. I would volunteer to help, but of course the first
> > >>> question is: Why do
> > >>> >the globals have to be global? And: Did I guess right that this
> > >>> belongs to
> > >>> >the CINT rather than in the ROOT division?
> > >>> >
> > >>> >Thanks for your help.
> > >>> >
> > >>> >Best regards,
> > >>> >Axel
>
> --
> Org: CERN, European Laboratory for Particle Physics.
> Mail: 1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland
> E-Mail: Fons.Rademakers@cern.ch Phone: +41 22 7679248
> WWW: http://root.cern.ch/~rdm/ Fax: +41 22 7677910
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 01 2002 - 17:50:44 MET