Fun with C++26 reflection: Keyword Arguments

Re:Fun with C++26 reflection: Keyword Arguments by anitil on Monday February 10, 2025 @10:02PM (#43008454)

I suppose it depends on your application. I worked in embedded devices where stack was limited and the compiler was .... less than reliable about how it would manage passing a large struct to your function, which is why I mentioned passing in a pointer instead

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fun with C++26 reflection: Keyword Arguments by ranger_danger on Monday February 10, 2025 @11:26PM (#43008961)

yes a pointer to struct would be acceptable as well

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fun with C++26 reflection: Keyword Arguments by RossBencina on Tuesday February 11, 2025 @12:28AM (#43009302)

In 1998 perhaps. It wouldn't be acceptable to today's C++ value-semantics crowd. Are you sure that you want to take the indirection penalty? or that the compiler will optimise it away?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fun with C++26 reflection: Keyword Arguments by BodkinsOdds on Tuesday February 11, 2025 @01:47AM (#43009745)

C++ is already so reliant on optimizing `const&` parameters that I can't imagine why you wouldn't use them if you happen to be stuck with a shitty embedded toolchain (or MSVC) that can't be relied on to pass struct parameters efficiently.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fun with C++26 reflection: Keyword Arguments by gpderetta on Tuesday February 11, 2025 @06:33AM (#43011629)

If stack space usage is an issue, then it means that the struct is already being passed by hidden pointer (as opposed to using a register passing calling convention). Making the pointer explicit won't have any effect on performance (but it will on semantics).

[ Parent | on HN ]