Boost logo

Boost :

From: Rozental, Gennadiy (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-02 13:27:30


> Are those just a few exceptions? I think I read in D&E a
> discussion that const is almost useless (but I can't locate
> D&E now, so I can't look it up). Searching for material on
> this now, I find a reference to an article by Andrew Koenig
> (How much does const promise? - C++ Report/1997) that
> apparently seems to make the same point but I don't know
> because I haven't read the article. Another page I found
> gave an example that the compiler must make sure that "this"
> is not saved in any of the constructors as this would allow
> the object to access itself non-constly. This means the
> compiler must know the content of the constructor with which
> your optimization candidate was initialized, and the content
> of the constructors used in the initializer list of that
> constructor for each the object's members, etc etc
> recursively, before considering optimizations. Maybe I'm
> just talking nonsense, but it was just my (perhaps-mistaken)
> understanding that compilers cannot really do optimizat!
> ions based on const, without a lot of work that is not worth
> it just for this optimization capability. Anyway, this is
> all I can say on the subject :)

I second this. I also beleive that due to presence in a language const_cast
and mutable in majority of the cases compiler is not capable of any
optimization based in constness.

Gennadiy.


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk