Re: [boost] boost::function overhead?

From: Doug Gregor (dgregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-02 13:36:43

On May 2, 2006, at 1:01 PM, Neal Becker wrote:

> David Abrahams wrote:
>> Actually it's not a virtual call, it's a call through a function
>> pointer.  That's one less indirection.
>>
>
> Do you think a smart compiler might optimize this to a direct call?

I have yet to see a compiler smart enough to optimize this indirection.

        Doug