From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-22 08:15:51
"Arkadiy Vertleyb" <vertleyb_at_[hidden]> writes:
> "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote
>> >> Okay, how about the one enclosed here, then?
>> > Now you have both size() and size_<> instantiated LIMIT_SIZE times ;-)
>> According to Eric, you need something like size_<> to workaround vc++
>> bugs, though.
> Not if the expression is simplified. It's really multiple calls to sizeof
> what drives the compiler crazy.
>> Okay, let me try one more. I think this one gets close
>> to the minimal number of instantiations required to work around VC++
> Still, select<> is instantiated LIMIT_SIZE times...
Yes, but not LIMIT_SIZE * N, where N is the number of different types
passed to BOOST_TYPEOF. So it's a one-time cost, which is better than
what I posted earlier.
> The beauty of the ugly solution with the conditional operator is that it
> brings the algorithm complexity, in terms of template instantiations, to
> O(m), where m is the real size of the vector. True, we pay by doubling the
> amount of template lookups, and expression evaluations, but it looks like it
> It's a pity that VC8 chokes on this in some contexts -- maybe we'll be able
> to get MS to fix it before the real thing comes out.
Yes, I have got one of their engineers working on it :)
> Until then, I believe we should specialcase the VC8, and I think
> your first suggestion, with no separate size function will do the
> job fine.
I think my latest is better.
> We could even limit this to dependent contexts, since I don't think this
> problem exists outside templates. However your other suggestion, that
> allows to remove _TPL, makes this impossible. Still, I love the idea of
> removing _TPL so much that I am willing to pay this price...
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk