On Tuesday, Sep 2, 2003, at 13:00 America/Denver, Peter Dimov wrote:
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.
That is most unfortunate.
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
