Re: [boost] Re: Comments on crc9

From: Jens Maurer (Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-03-27 13:10:34

Darin Adler wrote:
> 
> Daryle Walker wrote:
> >> I think I changed it because I heard that compilers inline function objects
> >> better than functions.
> 
> on 3/27/01 9:45 AM, Jens Maurer at Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden] wrote:
> > This sounds like a very platform-dependent claim which is hopefully
> > backed by lots of benchmarks on different platforms?  In other words:
> > This is most certainly not correct in general.
> 
> Although this is platform-dependent, it's not really just one programmer's
> opinion. For example, Bjarne mentions this in section 18.4 of The C++
> Programming Language. To quote him (page 515 of the Special Edition): "For
> example, it is easier to inline the application operator of a class than to
> inline a function passed as a pointer to a function. Consequently, function
> objects often execute faster than do ordinary functions."

I didn't get the impression from the code that you're passing around
function (object) pointers.  Instead, I read "reflector_type()( x )",
where reflector_type is a "typedef reflect<>".  This surely looks
like, in effect, a normal function call to me.

You may want to check whether explicit value template parameters
for functions is broken on MSVC before changing that, though.

Jens Maurer