Paul A. Bristow wrote: >> >> For example, VC 7.1 discards d1 if it is not referenced, so there is >> no issue with paying for what you don't use when using that method on >> that compiler. > > This is good news. What optimisation did you chose?
/O2 >> It would be useful to know what compilers do retain >> unused constants. > > But is tiresome to find out, and will keep changing. (and if the > scheme becomes widely used, compiler writers will have a strong > incentive to make sure it is optimized away. Agreed, an active search would be a lot of effort. I passive approach may be practical however. My thinking is to start from a position that all compilers optimize well. Then when someone says, "Sorry, that interface triggers this pessimization on compiler x," just make a note of x and its limitation. This way to don't need to look for compiler limitations; news of such will come to you. There probably aren't a ton of limitations; so the list may well be short, and it can be a big timer saver to know exactly which compilers to care about when they get reved, especially if a removal of a key limitation eliminates the need for a complex workaround. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
