[boost] Re: Re: Re: Re: New patch for operators.hpp uploaded

From: Daniel Frey (d.frey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-22 18:56:27

On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 00:23:59 +0200, David Abrahams wrote:

Thanks Dave!!!

> gcc-2.95.3
> X
> XC
> 
> gcc-3.0.4
> XC
> XCC
> 
> gcc-3.2:
> X
> X

NRVO!

> cwpro7.2:
> XC
> XCC

What the ***? Have you applied any basic optimization level? Something
similar to -O2 for the gcc?

> cwpro8.2
> X
> XC
> 
> cwpro8.3:
> X
> X

Ah, another cool compiler :)

> vc6:
> X
> XC
> 
> vc7:
> X
> XC
> 
> vc7.1:
> X
> XC

*sight* I hoped that the Visual implements the NRVO, but obviously it
doesn't...

> intel C++ 5.0
> XC
> XC
> 
> intel-6.0
> XC
> XC

?? The intel compiler seems to have some severe bugs... when I changed
the calls to X( f() ) and X( g() ) there was no output at all. Seems the
compiler was a bit too optimistic about removing temporaries :)))

> intel 7 beta (no optimization - release mode fails to link): XC XC

Anyway, these results are of great help, thanks again! What about the
actual patch to operators.hpp? Besides all the (nice) discussions about
NRVO and Mojo, I still would like to know what needs to be done :)

Regards, Daniel