Yep.
Consider the following function:
The type of this function is different depending on whether it is an ordinary function or a non-static member function of some class:
Note: if it's a static member function of class Fred, its type is the
same as if it was an ordinary function: "
[ Top | Bottom | Previous section | Next section | Search the FAQ ]
Don't.
Because a member function is meaningless without an object to invoke it on, you can't do this directly (if The X Window System was rewritten in C++, it would probably pass references to objects around, not just pointers to functions; naturally the objects would embody the required function and probably a whole lot more).
As a patch for existing software, use a top-level (non-member) function as a
wrapper which takes an object obtained through some other technique.
Depending on the routine you're calling, this "other technique" might be
trivial or might require a little work on your part. The system call that
starts a thread, for example, might require you to pass a function pointer
along with a
Here's an example of the worst case (using a global). Suppose you want to
call
Note: static member functions do not require an actual object to be invoked, so pointers-to-static-member-functions are type compatible with regular pointers-to-functions.
[ Top | Bottom | Previous section | Next section | Search the FAQ ]
This is a special case of the previous two questions, therefore read the previous two answers first.
Non-static member functions have a hidden parameter that corresponds to the this pointer. The this pointer points to the instance data for the object. The interrupt hardware/firmware in the system is not capable of providing the this pointer argument. You must use "normal" functions (non class members) or static member functions as interrupt service routines.
One possible solution is to use a static member as the interrupt service routine and have that function look somewhere to find the instance/member pair that should be called on interrupt. Thus the effect is that a member function is invoked on an interrupt, but for technical reasons you need to call an intermediate function first.
[ Top | Bottom | Previous section | Next section | Search the FAQ ]
This is a corollary to the previous FAQ.
Long answer: In C++, member functions have an implicit parameter which points to the object (the this pointer inside the member function). Normal C functions can be thought of as having a different calling convention from member functions, so the types of their pointers (pointer-to-member-function vs. pointer-to-function) are different and incompatible. C++ introduces a new type of pointer, called a pointer-to-member, which can be invoked only by providing an object.
NOTE: do not attempt to "cast" a pointer-to-member-function into a pointer-to-function; the result is undefined and probably disastrous. E.g., a pointer-to-member-function is not required to contain the machine address of the appropriate function. As was said in the last example, if you have a pointer to a regular C function, use either a top-level (non-member) function, or a static (class) member function.
[ Top | Bottom | Previous section | Next section | Search the FAQ ]
Do both a typedef and a
Step 1: create a typedef:
Step 2: create a
(Normally I dislike
Here's how you use these features:
I strongly recommend these features. In the real world, member function invocations are a lot more complex than the simple example just given, and the difference in readability and writability is significant. comp.lang.c++ has had to endure hundreds and hundreds of postings from confused programmers who couldn't quite get the syntax right. Almost all these errors would have vanished had they used these features.
Note:
[ Top | Bottom | Previous section | Next section | Search the FAQ ]
Use both the typedef and the
Step 1: create a typedef:
Step 2: create a
Now your array of pointers-to-member-functions is straightforward:
And your usage of one of the member function pointers is also straightforward:
Note:
[ Top | Bottom | Previous section | Next section | Search the FAQ ]
No!
Please do not email me if the above seems to work on your particular version of your particular compiler on your particular operating system. I don't care. It's illegal, period.
[ Top | Bottom | Previous section | Next section | Search the FAQ ]
No!
Please do not email me if the above seems to work on your particular version of your particular compiler on your particular operating system. I don't care. It's illegal, period.
[ Top | Bottom | Previous section | Next section | Search the FAQ ]
E-mail the author
[ C++ FAQ Lite
| Table of contents
| Subject index
| About the author
| ©
| Download your own copy ]
Revised May 2, 2003