This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Code gen question
- To: pderbysh at usa dot net (Paul Derbyshire)
- Subject: Re: Code gen question
- From: Jason Merrill <jason at cygnus dot com>
- Date: 12 Feb 1999 15:29:03 -0800
- Cc: egcs at cygnus dot com
- References: <3.0.6.32.19990212180551.00841100.cygnus.egcs@pop.netaddress.com>
>>>>> Paul Derbyshire <pderbysh@usa.net> writes:
> Which will cause cc1plus to generate better code?
> inline int myclass::myfunc (int j) { return j*j*j; }
> inline int myclass::myfunc (const int &j) { return j*j*j; }
> My guess would be the latter, since the latter when inlined won't make a
> copy of the argument passed.
Neither will the former. The difference is that the latter refers to its
arguments address, which impairs optimization (though not as much as it
used to). Absolutely pass scalars by value.
Jason