Boost :

Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

From: Valentin Samko (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-13 08:47:35

Next message: David Abrahams: "[boost] Re: [Review] Named parameters library"
Previous message: David Abrahams: "[boost] Re: [Review] Named parameters library"
In reply to: Richard Newman: "[boost] Re: performance using accumulate, bind, and make_transform_iterator"
Next in thread: David Abrahams: "[boost] Re: performance using accumulate, bind, and make_transform_iterator"
Reply: David Abrahams: "[boost] Re: performance using accumulate, bind, and make_transform_iterator"

RN> Do you have specific advice/experience for Linux's g++ that might improve or
RN> explain what we're seeing here?

g++ does NRVO, which some popular optimising compilers (like VC++ 7.1)
do not do. In my experience, some programs compiled with g++ are
noticeably faster than when compiled with vc++ 7.1, mainly due to the
NRVO. Afaik, NRVO it not implemented in VC++ 7.1 because it conflicts
with the current C++ standard (3.7.2).

Valentin Samko
http://val.samko.info

Next message: David Abrahams: "[boost] Re: [Review] Named parameters library"
Previous message: David Abrahams: "[boost] Re: [Review] Named parameters library"
In reply to: Richard Newman: "[boost] Re: performance using accumulate, bind, and make_transform_iterator"
Next in thread: David Abrahams: "[boost] Re: performance using accumulate, bind, and make_transform_iterator"
Reply: David Abrahams: "[boost] Re: performance using accumulate, bind, and make_transform_iterator"

Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

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