Prev: concurrent linked queue class for C++?
Next: Sequence Point
From: Le Chaud Lapin on 9 Dec 2009 03:49
On Dec 8, 6:40 pm, George Neuner <gneun...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 13:51:13 CST, Le Chaud Lapin
> IMO, always calling the function is a cop out ... generating correct
> inline code really isn't that hard and you can always limit the
> inlined cases to those that are aligned and simple to count and fall
> back on the general function for everything else. This is one case
> where I think M$ really screwed up.
>
> George

That is essentially my sentiment.

What suprises me is that there are so often the compiler designer is
unable to employ an optimization because there exist the potential of
a rare-but-treacherous code sequence that would negate its validity.

In this case, not only is the optimization always employable, but the
_memcpy alternative actually results in less contextual information
than existed before the call to it.

But I really like M$ compilers, so I have to tell myself that they
have a good reason for doing this other than laziness. :D

-Le Chaud Lapin-


--
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]

 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: concurrent linked queue class for C++?
Next: Sequence Point