Something about std::list<> member functions.

[Jason Merrill]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 00:28:12 -0400, Jerry Quinn <jlquinn@optonline.net> wrote:

> Gabriel Dos Reis writes:
>  > Nathan Myers <ncm-nospam@cantrip.org> writes:
>  > 
>  > | Without consulting those, I recall Jason Merrill mentioning that
>  > | you can get enormous optimization improvements just from declaring
>  > | the inline functions' arguments "const", unnecessarily.  Is that 
>  > | advice still current?  Since it doesn't affect the ABI or standard 
>  > | conformance, that seems worth doing where it makes a difference.
>  > 
>  > We already pass the arguments by const reference.
>
> If I remember right, the issue isn't passing by const ref.  It's that
> early on in parsing(?) the input, when the argument itself isn't
> const, the compiler fails to see that inlining is OK.  Which means you
> would have to have something like:
>
> int function(const T& x const)
>
> in order to work around the problem.  Even though declaring x const is
> silly.

References are inherently const, so this is meaningless.  IIRC my comment
referred to non-reference parameters.  I also don't know if this is still
true.

Jason