From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-09-02 14:00:42
Gregory Colvin wrote:
> On Tuesday, Sep 2, 2003, at 12:27 America/Denver, Peter Dimov wrote:
>> Then again, the Dinkumware implementation
>> dutifully calls construct and destroy, paying (and forcing me to pay)
>> the abstraction penalty price... so maybe I'm wrong, and
>> construct/destroy are useful?
> I don't see that there need be any performance price for what
> Dinkumware does, or is that not what you mean by "abstraction
I'm not saying that there need be any price in a perfect world. I am saying
that in practice, on the compiler I use, there is a price, like calling a
non-inline destroy() O(N) times for a value_type that has an inline, empty,
nonvirtual destructor. Or even for a built-in value_type.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk