Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] layout
From: Domagoj Saric (domagoj.saric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-10-02 07:20:57
"Steven Watanabe" <watanabesj_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> These two structs should both take up 16 bytes.
> You don't save anything by reordering the
true :blush: should've checked the issue beforehand ;)
but it was more of a side note/'thought' anyway...my main concern was with
>> and, more importantly, it forces pointer offset adjustment/calculation
>> when accessing a boost::optional<> through a pointer (and trying to
>> access the actual contained object)...
> Is the difference in performance actually measurable in any way?
well, "actually measurable difference in performance" is, imho, kind of a
"grey area"/"subjective metric"...and a library should not, imnho, make
'real world' usage assumptions if it does not have to...and in this case, as
far as i can see/imho, it does not have to...that is, from the standpoint of
boost::optional<> it makes no difference what layout it uses, but one of
those layouts does cause the usage of more complicated addresing modes/extra
adjustment code (depending on the platform) in certain cases...the fact that
this is infinitesimally insignificant compared to a single default
construction of a std::sstream ;-D makes no difference (if i am not mistaken
with the assumption that the actual layout makes no difference from the
boost::optional<> point of view)...
-- "That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history." Aldous Huxley
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk