Re: [boost] boost::function code size

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-02 03:25:04

Doug Gregor wrote:

> > Given that, IIUC, boost::function has to do indirect call somewhere
> > anyway, I'm not sure inlining is such a good idea. Maybe some of the
> > methods should be declared out-of-line, so that compiler don't try to
> > inline them?
>
> If I can find a way to do it that won't break many compilers (e,g,, MSVC 6
> that can't handle out-of-line definitions for templates) I'll do this for
> 1.32.0; otherwise, it'll have to wait until after the release.

Maybe, we can #ifdef MSVC6 and use inline definition on that comlier? I've 
tried the attached patch and each call now costs about 20bytes (even 14 on 
3.4), which is quite an improvement.

- Volodya