Alt text:

Image that says:

HOLY SHIT!! IS THAT A MOTHERF*CKING C++ REFERENCE???

int& a = b;

  • TheEntity@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    6 months ago

    never mind, I looked it up. It’s a “reference” instead of a pointer. Similar, but unlike a pointer it doesn’t create a distinct variable in memory of its own.

    I’m almost sure it does create a distinct variable in memory. Internally it’s still a pointer, specifically a const pointer (not to be confused with a pointer to a const value; it’s the address that does not change). Think about it as a pointer that is only ever dereferenced and never used as a pointer. So yes, like the other commenter said, like an alias.

    • Sonotsugipaa@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      I don’t think references are variables: you can’t modify them, and AFAIR you can’t have pointers to them, with the possible but unlikely exception of non-static member references.

      • TheEntity@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        6 months ago

        An int& reference is just as much of a variable as int* const would be (a const pointer to a non-const int). “Variable” might be a misnomer here, but it takes just as much memory as any other pointer.

      • Ethan@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        For references within a scope, you’re probably right. For references that cross scope boundaries (i.e. function parameters), they necessarily must consume memory (or a register). Passing a parameter to a function call consumes memory or a register by definition. If a function call is inlined, that means its instructions are copy-pasted to the call location so there’s no actual call in the compiled code.