 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
.NET Forum / Languages / Managed C++ / February 2005Subtle diffs between C++IJW, unmanaged, __nogc, etc
Compiling a straight C++ module under VC++ 7 would seem to autogen an 'IJW' type .NET module, even if the module has standard VC++ syntax. I'm assuming that the 'unmanaged' flag would have no further affect on this code. Nor would __nogc. Correct? Or are there subtle further differences? Are there recommended references that sort this type of thing out in precise detail? Hi J, > Compiling a straight C++ module under VC++ 7 would seem to autogen an > 'IJW' type .NET module, even if the module has standard VC++ syntax. Only if you compile with /clr. Unless you enable that, the compiler will produce straight x86 machine code, no .NET anywhere, just as with VC 6. > I'm assuming that the 'unmanaged' flag would have no further affect on > this code. Nor would __nogc. Correct? Or are there subtle further > differences? What unmanaged flag? you mean #pragma unmanaged? That is only useful to force methods to be compiled as x86 code in a module compiled with /clr. Once you enable /clr, all methods (regardless of whether they are global methods or class members) get compiled as MSIL (but classes themselves remain unmanaged types), unless they use a few special idioms (variable arg methods, inline asm code, etc.) that force the compiler to generate them as unmanaged code anyway, or you use #pragma unmanaged on them The __nogc thing, whether it causes semantic changes, depends a lot on what context you are using it, but, for the most part, in your example it should cause non.  SignatureTomas Restrepo tomasr@mvps.org http://www.winterdom.com/weblog >Hi J, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Only if you compile with /clr. Unless you enable that, the compiler will >produce straight x86 machine code, no .NET anywhere, just as with VC 6. Yes, that's what I meant. >> I'm assuming that the 'unmanaged' flag would have no further affect on >> this code. Nor would __nogc. Correct? Or are there subtle further >> differences? > >What unmanaged flag? you mean #pragma unmanaged? That is only useful to >force methods to be compiled as x86 code in a module compiled with /clr. Yes, #pragma. I should have been more specific. It brings up an interesting point though. I'm trying to fit code together between managed, unmanaged and a legacy DLL (unmanaged, of course). It never occurred to me to compile the middle level without the #pragma unmanaged flag, as I thought it would be a more reliable bridge down to the old DLL. On the other hand, maybe it's not as reliable in getting back to the unmanaged code. >Once you enable /clr, all methods (regardless of whether they are global >methods or class members) get compiled as MSIL (but classes themselves >remain unmanaged types), unless they use a few special idioms (variable arg >methods, inline asm code, etc.) that force the compiler to generate them as >unmanaged code anyway, or you use #pragma unmanaged on them See, this is the kind of stuff I'm looking for to fill in gaps in vague specs. It's tough to get a good intuitive feel for this. >The __nogc thing, whether it causes semantic changes, depends a lot on what >context you are using it, but, for the most part, in your example it should >cause non. Non? Thanks
Free MagazinesGet these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...
|
Reply to this Message
|
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.