Re: [boost] [optional] generates unnessesary code for trivial types

Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] generates unnessesary code for trivial types
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-01-30 13:51:42

on Wed Jan 25 2012, "Simonson, Lucanus J" <lucanus.j.simonson-AT-intel.com> wrote:

> I don't personally think that the style of programming that optional
> is intended for is suitable for high performance/performance critical
> situations in the first place.  

Why not?  It seems like a great candidate for common compiler
optimizations.

> Pass by reference and return a bool for a conditional return value.
> Pass the bool and the object separately for a conditional argument.
> Pass or return a pointer and check if it is null.  Yes, my advice
> really is to not use optional if you want performance.  

Why?

> Even if we did everything you can think of to make optional fast you
> are still better off designing your interfaces in such a way that you
> don't need it if your goal is performance.  

Why do you say that?

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com