This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Scribit Jonathan Wakely dies 30/11/2005 hora 17:18: > If the change was to be accepted, should it be a new iterator object > or just a reference to give the existing object a new name? Now that I have thought of it (see my another post), I think the right thing would be a reference. I'd let others do the choice, because I'm not used to references much... > Will the right choice still be the right choice in a year, when GCC's > optimisers are different? Or in five years? I really can't see any compelling reason for a compiler to drop such a simple and efficient optimization (it has no drawbacks, no side-effect, etc.). But I'm no compiler guru. > Who will keep measuring it to ensure the code is still optimal? How do you keep measuring things to ensure the code is still optimal in other locations of libstdc++'s code? I'm pretty sure the same method would apply here. > Your suggestion will probably never result in *better* code, so the > best we can hope for is equal performance, It *is* meant to provide exactly equal performance. > but possibly worse if a regression occurs in the compiler We have to let compilers' developpers deal with that. Are you telling you will never adapt your coding techniques to the evolution of computer science? <flame> Why don't you write libstdc++ in assembly, it wouldn't depend on any compiler... </flame> > The primary use of the library code is not to be read by end users, > it's to execute efficiently and correctly. It is executed many more > times than it is read. Do you know a reasonably used library that is more read than it is executed? > There are *far* harder things to understand in the code than a > variable name that is misleading the first few times you see it :-) I agree with that. But I think the probability of regressions are so close to zero and the benefit in the readability of libstdc++ so immediate that it is worth. YMMV Simply, Nowhere man -- nowhere.man@levallois.eu.org OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |