From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-04-14 09:42:43
From: "David Abrahams" <abrahams_at_[hidden]>
> From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
> > In short, I'm saying that we should have two BOOST_PRECONDITIONs, one
> > situations where it's likely to have a performance impact in release,
> > one for places where it can safely be left on, even in high-perf code.
> > I see scoped_ptr::operator*() as an example of a 'costly' check and
> > function::operator()() as a 'free' check.
> Even "free" checks cost code space (and some speed), for which embedded
> programmers may not be willing to pay.
Yes, in theory. However RTTI, for instance, does cost quite a lot more space
(many console game programmers never enable it - and some even disable
exceptions) and boost libraries don't exactly try to accommodate their point
Anyway, I think that the basic idea of having two separately-configurable
precondition macros is sound.
-- Peter Dimov Multi Media Ltd.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk