Hello, newbie here.

I'd like to know if there is a way to return a structure from a
function, without creating any other intermediate variables. Also,
this should be done such that the function can still be declared as
inline.

More precisely, given the structure:

struct TwoFields {
int Field_one;
int Field_two;
}

I want a function like the following one, but without the
extra declaration, "TwoFields myReturnStruct;":

inline TwoFields ReturnMyFields(int myInt) {

TwoFields myReturnStruct;

myReturnStruct.Field_one = myInt/2;
myReturnStruct.Field_two = myInt%%2;

return myReturnStruct;
}

alex.j.k2@gmail.com dixit:

The usual way is to pass a reference to the struct (as a parameter) in
which you want to put the return value (the same for vector, list, ...)

On May 11, 2:02 pm, john gmail.com> wrote:

OK, that certainly works.

But is this the only way to do it?

What if I have a lot of code which returns a struct (or vector,
etc..) by creating an intermediate variable in the function; and I do
not want to modify all the occurrences of the function in the code,
only the function itself.

On 11 Maj, 19:57, alex.j...@gmail.com wrote:

On May 11, 2:19 pm, peter koch gmail.com> wrote:

If I parse this correctly, you are saying that a good compiler will
not actually make the extra allocation if it is not needed, even if I
use the code in the initial post. Is that correct?

* alex.j.k2@gmail.com:

On May 11, 2:45 pm, "Alf P. Steinbach" wrote:

Yes. In my defense, I did not do something as dumb as passing
megabytes of data by value instead of reference. The values passed
around are just one integer and a two integer struct, as in my
example. Google led me to believe that there is not much speed
difference in passing by reference instead of value for such small
data -- sometimes (for some compilers) passing by value may be faster,
Google said.

alex.j.k2@gmail.com wrote:

On 2008-05-12 00:33, Gianni Mariani wrote:

Stefan Ram wrote: