Re: [boost] boost::function code size

From: Doug Gregor (dgregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-10 22:09:48

On Jul 2, 2004, at 3:25 AM, Vladimir Prus wrote:

> Doug Gregor wrote:
>
>>> Given that, IIUC, boost::function has to do indirect call somewhere
>>> anyway, I'm not sure inlining is such a good idea. Maybe some of the
>>> methods should be declared out-of-line, so that compiler don't try to
>>> inline them?
>>
>> If I can find a way to do it that won't break many compilers (e,g,, 
>> MSVC 6
>> that can't handle out-of-line definitions for templates) I'll do this 
>> for
>> 1.32.0; otherwise, it'll have to wait until after the release.
>
> Maybe, we can #ifdef MSVC6 and use inline definition on that comlier? 
> I've
> tried the attached patch and each call now costs about 20bytes (even 
> 14 on
> 3.4), which is quite an improvement.

I've checked in your patch, using BOOST_WORKAROUND instead of _MSVC. 
Thanks!

        Doug