From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,d275ffeffdf83655
X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public
X-Google-Thread: 146b77,d275ffeffdf83655
X-Google-Attributes: gid146b77,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,d275ffeffdf83655
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 115aec,d275ffeffdf83655
X-Google-Attributes: gid115aec,public
X-Google-Thread: 101b33,d275ffeffdf83655
X-Google-Attributes: gid101b33,public
X-Google-Thread: f849b,d275ffeffdf83655
X-Google-Attributes: gidf849b,public
X-Google-Thread: f5d71,d275ffeffdf83655
X-Google-Attributes: gidf5d71,public
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,d275ffeffdf83655
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
From: johnb@invision.co.uk (John Birch)
Subject: Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java
Date: 1999/01/18
Message-ID: <36a3281a.11980677@news.demon.co.uk>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 433969742
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: invision.demon.co.uk:158.152.59.42
References: <369C1F31.AE5AF7EF@concentric.net>
 <tz5n2.4608$TO5.129375@ptah.visi.com> <369DDDC3.FDE09999@sea.ericsson.se>
 <369e309a.32671759@news.demon.co.uk> <369F0592.94F9DDDA@dresdner-bank.com>
 <77pnr4$ch3$1@newnews.global.net.uk> <m3u2xqgzi0.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 916662911 nnrp-05:21764 NO-IDENT
 invision.demon.co.uk:158.152.59.42
Reply-To: johnb<nospam>@invision.co.uk
Newsgroups: 
 comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.vxworks,comp.lang.java,comp.java.advocacy,comp.realtime,comp.arch.embedded,comp.object,comp.lang.java.programmer
Date: 1999-01-18T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Sun, 17 Jan 1999 06:53:08 GMT, Matthew Heaney
<matthew_heaney@acm.org> wrote:

>"John Birch" <johnb@invision.co.uk> writes:
>
>> The reason IMHO is that C++ inherently relies upon dynamic memory
>> allocation! It's really as simple as that. If you can show me how to
>> calculate the maximum amount of memory required by a given C++ program then
>> I'll reconsider, until then I'll continue using C without malloc and free!
>
>When does C++ "inherently rely upon dynamic memory allocation"?
>
OK, say I have the following;

Complex one (1), Complex two (2), Complex three (3), Complex four (4);

Complex Sum;

Sum = one + two + three + four;

If Complex is a class with an overloaded + operator, I get temporary
objects generated (possibly at the compiler's option) in the above
statement. Since it can be written as;

Sum = operator + (operator + (operator +(one, two), three), four);

Now where do these temporary objects get created? On the stack, or on
the heap.

In C the stack size (without recursion) can never grow beyond the
maximum of the total of the stack requirements of all of the functions
defined.

How do I calculate the potential stack size in C++?

There is inherent dynamic memory allocation going on here, it is
irrelevant whether it is satck or heap. I (the coder) did not
explicitly allocate memory, the language (or rather the implementation
of the language) did.

regards John B.