David Fang wrote:
>
>
> ... And when the said constructor is trivial (e.g. for POD), then you pay
> nothing, zilch, nada. (same with placement delete) In C++, some things
> you write (od don't write) are merely abstractions for what should happen,
> which can represent 'nothing'. Only if you ask for pessimized code can
> you possibly pay function call overheads on de-inlined empty functions.
>
> Fang
>
Again, my apologies. Being a largely dynamic system, this project itself
isn't particularly effected by peak performance overheads... I was referring
instead to code maintainability, which is a much more significant priority
given the scope of my particular situation. Of course, I would like to
remind everyone, that I'm arguing for many more people than the needs of
myself or my compatriots. There are no shortage of requests for such a
feature on google met with cold attitudes and dismissive responses. When in
reality, this is a very valid feature for consideration. Perhaps the only
difference is, I don't have the option of retreating and regrouping at this
point. So one way or another GCC will have to bend for me, whether it can be
done legitimately, and everyone can benefit, or I have to hack it
sufficiently myself.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/I%27m-sorry%2C-but-this-is-unacceptable-%28union-members-and-ctors%29-tf3930964.html#a11157362
Sent from the gcc - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
