David Cantrell wrote on Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 04:04:33PM +0000:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 11:40:40AM -0400, Martin Cracauer wrote:
>
> > FWIW, in C++ as of today's gcc, a function exiting with a thrown
> > exception is roughly 1000 times more expensive than a regular
> > call/return ...
>
> "More expensive" defined how? Memory usage? CPU cycles? Developer
> effort?
CPU cyles.
[...]
28.1 nsec/call: 'rand'
25.3 nsec/call: 'random'
7401.7 nsec/call: 'cpp_testhrow_throw'
15.9 nsec/call: 'cpp_testhrow_no_throw'
13.7 nsec/call: 'cpp_testhrow_no_possible_throw'
7.7 nsec/call: 'cpp_testhrow_no_cleanup_no_throw'
3.5 nsec/call: 'cpp_testhrow_no_cleanup_no_possible_throw'
[...]
That has one object with a minimal destructor in the cleanup.
K8 2.4 GHz, gcc-4.3
Code at:
http://www.cons.org/cracauer/general-tester.cc
Martin
--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Martin Cracauer <[email protected]> http://www.cons.org/cracauer/
FreeBSD - where you want to go, today. http://www.freebsd.org/
_______________________________________________
Boston-pm mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
