On 27 out, 15:24, Mears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 27, 5:00 am, Jeff Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 26, 9:49 pm, Mears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > I spent some time profiling exception performance on Solaris 10 with
> > > Sun's CC and two different versions of g+
On Oct 27, 5:00 am, Jeff Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 9:49 pm, Mears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I spent some time profiling exception performance on Solaris 10 with
> > Sun's CC and two different versions of g++. The setup was a class
> > that threw an exception (an int
On Oct 26, 9:49 pm, Mears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I spent some time profiling exception performance on Solaris 10 with
> Sun's CC and two different versions of g++. The setup was a class
> that threw an exception (an int value) in its constructor if an
> argument was out of range. The main p
I spent some time profiling exception performance on Solaris 10 with
Sun's CC and two different versions of g++. The setup was a class
that threw an exception (an int value) in its constructor if an
argument was out of range. The main program basically dynamically
allocated objects of that type a
Mears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I spent some time profiling exception performance on Solaris 10 with
> Sun's CC and two different versions of g++.
Whatever for?
Any program where exception handling takes significant portion of
total execution time is brain-damaged and needs to be rewritten.
