Timeline for New C++ (C++11) and embedded electronics
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 10, 2012 at 12:13 | comment | added | Wouter van Ooijen | In that case he is at least a bit sloppy, because he says "assembly code", which for me implies coding in assembly language. For other meaning he should say something like 'machine instructions', which is totally correct but equally pointless. | |
| Sep 10, 2012 at 11:51 | comment | added | Rocketmagnet | That was not at all clear from the post. IVA's comment is bad because it suggests that any tool which generates assembler is equivalent. One could happily use the features of C++ which are most inappropriate for an MCU, while saying to themselves "It's all assembler in the end". I have seen this happen. | |
| Sep 10, 2012 at 11:28 | comment | added | Wouter van Ooijen | In the first paragraph I argue that "whether to C++11 or not" is a non-question, just like "to C++ or to C". When you can use a C++11-enabled toolchain go check which features are helpfull to you. The feature I show makes using the factory pattern easy while still 'banning' dynamic memory use (which is or should be a concern in a resource-constrained application). PS I aree that IVA's comment is irrelevant. | |
| Sep 10, 2012 at 9:52 | comment | added | Rocketmagnet | I don't see how this addresses the OP's question, which is about the suitability of C++11 for embedded systems. | |
| Sep 9, 2012 at 19:11 | history | edited | Wouter van Ooijen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
typo
|
| Sep 9, 2012 at 17:48 | history | answered | Wouter van Ooijen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |