Re: [boost] [function] function wrappingwithnoexceptionsafetyguarantee

Subject: Re: [boost] [function] function wrappingwithnoexceptionsafetyguarantee
From: Daniel Walker (daniel.j.walker_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-11-13 13:39:30

On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Domagoj Saric <dsaritz_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> "Daniel Walker" <daniel.j.walker_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> news:AANLkTin+bj=YeGtpo7sqLMUq2Nx3uG_teEFbcDMsM5Eb_at_mail.gmail.com...
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr.
>> <jhellrung_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Would it also be appropriate to measure the "space/call", in addition to
>>> "time/call" and "space/type"?  Or is there no difference, or had this
>>> been
>>> addressed already?
>>
>> Well, a call to boost::function does not cost any additional space.
>
> How (or better, why) can you possibly claim something as plainly false as
> this..?
>
> That this is false is obvious to anyone just following the discussion (and
> all the talk about the redundant if empty then throw logic/code) not to
> mention to someone that actually poked around the source code or even looked
> at the generated code....

boost::function allocates space when it is instantiated and assigned
(e.g. line 580 of function_template.hpp), but not during a call to
boost::function. Perhaps, you are referring to stack allocation? Yes,
a call to boost::function could result in the stack growing, but that
wasn't the question. If you are referring to the memory in the text
section of the executable used to define operator() itself, yes,
that's obvious, this is another space expense per type, but that
wasn't the question. If you are aware of some other memory which is
consumed during a call to boost::function, could you please be
specific and include line numbers?

Daniel Walker