From: Alexander Nasonov (alnsn_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-06 16:16:24
Andrey Semashev wrote:
> For me the performance is of high concern. I expect the
> BOOST_SCOPE_EXIT performance to be comparable to a hand-written scope
> guard like that:
> struct guard
> // guard body
My last solution wraps scope-exit-block into a function, take an
address of this function and calls it indirectly. I don't know (yet)
if any compiler is able to optimize this call away, though.
> Another thing I expect is the guard's construction error safety. I.e.
> it may not involve things like dynamic memory allocations, TLS slot
> acquirement, etc., and should minimize copying of any user's objects.
It's very lightweight.
-- Alexander Nasonov http://nasonov.blogspot.com When you are arguing against Him you are arguing against the very power that makes you able to argue at all. -- C.S. Lewis -- This quote is generated by: /usr/pkg/bin/curl -L http://tinyurl.com/veusy \ | sed -e 's/^document\.write(.//' -e 's/.);$/ --/' \ -e 's/<[^>]*>//g' -e 's/^More quotes from //' \ | fmt | tee ~/.signature-quote
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk