Hi all,
In experimenting with adding classes to ROOT, I think I stumbled on an
inconvenience in the way rootcint works. I wanted to see how ROOT
would work with user-defined abstract base classes, so I put together
a seemingly trivial example using two classes, `base' and `derived'.
The native SGI CC found errors in the dictionary file for these
classes created by running `rootcint'. When I looked at the source, I
found the following:
/* Setting up class inheritance */
static long G__2vbo_derived_base_0(long pobject) {
derived *derived=(derived*)pobject;
base *base=derived;
return((long)base-(long)derived);
}
Here's a dissection of that first variable declaration:
derived *derived=(derived*)pobject;
^ ^
| |
| name of local variable automatically generated by rootcint
|
name taken from the name of my class, `derived'
The fact that the local variable (coincidentally) has the same name as
my class, causes errors in compilation. If I change the name of my
class to `derived1', the same lines in the output of `rootcint' look
like:
/* Setting up class inheritance */
static long G__2vbo_derived1_base1_0(long pobject) {
derived1 *derived=(derived1*)pobject;
base1 *base=derived;
return((long)base-(long)derived);
}
And everything works just fine. We can certainly debate whether user
classes named `derived' and `base' are a good idea or not, but since
these functions above are automatically generated by `rootcint', and
are not generally intended for human consumption, I'd suggest it pick
names less likely to collide with user code - lots of underscores and
the like. Just my 2 [cents,francs,yen].
Cheers,
Dave
--
David P. Morrison, Postdoctoral Research Associate
University of Tennessee, 401 Nielsen Hall, Knoxville, TN 37996-1200
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, MS 6374, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6374
Phone: (423) 576-8765, Fax: (423) 576-5780, Finger for public key
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 04 2000 - 00:26:18 MET