From: Ed Brey (brey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-10 08:29:49
Paul A. Bristow wrote:
>> For example, VC 7.1 discards d1 if it is not referenced, so there is
>> no issue with paying for what you don't use when using that method on
>> that compiler.
> This is good news. What optimisation did you chose?
>> It would be useful to know what compilers do retain
>> unused constants.
> But is tiresome to find out, and will keep changing. (and if the
> scheme becomes widely used, compiler writers will have a strong
> incentive to make sure it is optimized away.
Agreed, an active search would be a lot of effort. I passive approach may be practical however. My thinking is to start from a position that all compilers optimize well. Then when someone says, "Sorry, that interface triggers this pessimization on compiler x," just make a note of x and its limitation. This way to don't need to look for compiler limitations; news of such will come to you.
There probably aren't a ton of limitations; so the list may well be short, and it can be a big timer saver to know exactly which compilers to care about when they get reved, especially if a removal of a key limitation eliminates the need for a complex workaround.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk