Gregory Colvin wrote: > On Tuesday, Sep 2, 2003, at 12:27 America/Denver, Peter Dimov wrote: > >> Then again, the Dinkumware implementation >> dutifully calls construct and destroy, paying (and forcing me to pay) >> the abstraction penalty price... so maybe I'm wrong, and >> construct/destroy are useful? > > I don't see that there need be any performance price for what > Dinkumware does, or is that not what you mean by "abstraction > penalty"?
I'm not saying that there need be any price in a perfect world. I am saying that in practice, on the compiler I use, there is a price, like calling a non-inline destroy() O(N) times for a value_type that has an inline, empty, nonvirtual destructor. Or even for a built-in value_type. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
