Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-17 23:37:32

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Mensonides" <pmenso57_at_[hidden]>

> > What is your basis for that conclusion? Are you speculating?
> > I happen to know that in one popular compiler implementation, name
> > mangling is the limiting factor, such that instantiation depth has a
> > direct impact on speed.
> Okay. I was speculating. However, it isn't worth bending over
backward for the
> sake of the name mangling inefficiency of compiler X. We should be
trying to
> push compiler vendors not coddle them.
> By the way, which compiler are you referring to? I primarily use
Comeau C++,
> which is definitely not the most efficient compiler out there--though
it is the
> most compliant. :)

Unless you have the very latest copy of Comeau, you're using the
compiler I'm referring to. There's a whole host of others with the same
front-end, and the same problems.

> > > . That compiler-defined limit is really only there to protect
> > > the compiler from recursing indefinitely:
> >
> > But in some compilers it is hard-coded (e.g. recent CodeWarrior
> > releases)
> But it is likely that this will not remain as meta-programming becomes
> widespread.

Some of us need to make this stuff work on real compilers, today.


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