From: Thorsten Ottosen (thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-20 17:42:36
Michael Marcin skrev:
> Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
>> I'll try to investigate this.
> I appreciate it.
> If you have things you'd like me to try out I can compile them and send you
> the mixed assembly output.
> One thing I noticed is that it seems to fail to eliminate the return value
> copy of the void_ptr_iterator::base call. Accessing iter_ directly
> (unfortunately) produces much better code but still not the best.
I have tried playing a little with your example, eg. using operator
To my surprise, I could not eliminate the overhead with vc8 (/Ox /Og).
Thus the iterator wrapping seems to pay some penalty. This is quite
Perhaps it is not optimal for iterator_adaptor to return base() by
const&. Perhaps I'm doing something wrong. At any rate,
I would have assumed iteration to be optimal.
I'll have to use some more time on this ... but thanks for pointing out
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk