afaik, templates might be inlined, static or shared... depending on the compiler and the flags.
for gcc see: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Template-Instantiation.html On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 4:35 PM, David Leimbach <leim...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Feb 18, 2011, at 11:15 AM, Bakul Shah <bakul+pl...@bitblocks.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 10:46:51 PST Rob Pike <robp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> The more you optimize, the better the odds you slow your program down. >>> Optimization adds instructions and often data, in one of the >>> paradoxes of engineering. In time, then, what you gain by >>> "optimizing" increases cache pressure and slows the whole thing down. >> >> You need a feedback loop. Uncontrolled anything is a recipe >> for disaster. Optimizations need to be `judicious' but that >> requires experience, profiling and understanding but the >> trend seems to be away from that..... >> >> On a slightly different tangent, 9p is simple but it doesn't >> handle latency very well. To make efficient use of long fat >> pipes you need more complex mechanisms -- there is no getting >> around that fact. rsync & hg in spite of their complexity >> beat the pants off replica. Their cache behavior is not very >> relevant here. Similarly file readahead is usually a win. >> >>> C++ inlines a lot because microbenchmarks improve, but inline every >>> modest function in a big program and you make the binary much bigger >>> and blow the i-cache. >> >> That's a compiler fault. Surely modern compilers need to be >> cache aware? ideally a smart compiler treats `inline' as a hint >> at most, just like `register'. >> > > Well how does template expansion affect all of this? I've heard in > conversations that C++ is pretty register hungry which makes me think lots of > inlining happens behind the scenes. Then again that's an implementation > detail, except maybe for templates. > -- Federico G. Benavento
