Re: [RFA] Algorithms vs operator* and operator==

[Chris Jefferson <caj at cs dot york dot ac dot uk>]

Paolo Carlini wrote:

> chris wrote:
>
> > This seems to be the line we have trouble with, as it could lead to 
> > an expensive copy. I haven't fully tested it yet, but I wonder if 
> > this line would be better expressed as:
> > typeof(*__first) __value = *__first; (where I've only just found 
> > typeof).
> >
> > I've done some benchmarks, and I'm reasonably convinced that this is 
> > both safe and the most efficent way of doing things. If *__first is a 
> > reference, we just store the reference and access it twice. If 
> > *__first is returned by value, then we only get it by value once and 
> > use it twice. Does this seem safe / sensible?
>
>
> Hi Chris, today I noticed this thread:
>
>    http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-01/msg01640.html
>
> Not nice...
No, which is a shame, as knowing if something is being passed by 
reference or value could be very useful...

Chris