[boost] Re: [Review] Named parameters library

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-18 12:32:14

"Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> writes:

> Reading through that thread, I think must be dependent on how we define
> "observable behavior". Including the
> memory system as observable is wierd IMO...just the fact that there are no
> other portable guarantees of memory layout/memory manager
> suggest that making 2 instead of 1 heap-allocations cannot be what we mean by
> observable.
>
> So the example from the gcc-thread,
>
> free(malloc(15));
>
> should easily be allowed to be removed.

Maybe so.  But as far as the named params library is concerned,
practical considerations have to come into play.  It doesn't matter
that the optimization is legal if no compilers can do it... or even
if it's optional and not even most compilers do it.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com