From: Mathias Gaunard (mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-23 12:01:51
> (4) decide if we have to use exception handling C++ constructs for
> arithmetic exceptions ( divide by zero, etc) or simply abort the program;
> this is essentially a matter of performance;
I didn't know aborting the program was more efficient than throwing an
Why not just invoke undefined behaviour if that allows the best efficiency?
> (10) about fixed size big integer I had tought to something like this:
> template< unsigned int N > class big_int; where N are the number of bits
> which have to be used;
That could even be used to have portable types with a fixed size, since
it can fall back to an existing type.
However, the ability to choose the size at runtime would also be needed.
> Question : is it possible to get good performance without implement the
> basic algorithms in assembler ?
I think some implementations don't use assembler and are quite efficient.
Assembler is only a bonus.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk