From: David B. Held (dheld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-26 11:00:17
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] Signals Library Review
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steven Kirk" <steven.kirk_at_[hidden]>
> > [...]
> > Oh now those sizes sound far more reasonable! In that case consider my
> > objections dropped. I'm still not sure how you're getting 80 bytes on
> > though. On a default Jam build, which I notice doesn't switch on the
> > base class optimisation or empty member optimisation, I get 136.
> > these optimisations, I get 120. Still quite some way behind GCC3.0.3
> Please post a patch for the toolset which enables these by default.
> no reason for them to be disabled unless they cause bugs.
I think on bcc, switching on empty base class optimization does indeed cause
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk