Boost logo

Boost :

From: scleary_at_[hidden]
Date: 1999-11-29 08:29:49

> Darin -
>> I suggest we remove the empty inline destructor definition. Does the it
>> make things more efficient? When I tested it with the compilers I use, it
>> made no difference in the code generated. If it doesn't make
>> things any better, I'd prefer to omit it.
> In at least one compiler (Borland C++) the presence of a destructor
> in exception handling prolog-epilog code even when the destructor is empty
> - given that its presence serves no purpose, it should indeed be left out

Yes, it should be left out, since implicit destructors and especially
trivial destructors, both generated by the compiler (not user-defined), are
much more easily optimized.

For the generic Boost version, it should be removed. I have a habit of
putting explicit destructors in every class I write because Borland C++
Builder (which I use) has an obscure bug dealing with stack unwinding that
is worked around by putting an explicit destructor in every unwound class.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at