On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 15:30:05 +0200, Daniel Pfeifer wrote: > Passing and returning strings: We have `const char*`, `std::string`, > and `std::string const&`. Unifying this can affect performance. > Storing `const char*` in a `std::string` creates a (potentially > unneded) copy (assuming it is not null).
I went through and changed all `const char*` paramters to `std::string const&` where the pointer was given to a string within the function (unless it was an error path or such). This allows eliding another allocation. > `const char*` can distinguish > invalid from empty. Do we actually need this distinction? It's used all over the place. --Ben -- Powered by www.kitware.com Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Kitware offers various services to support the CMake community. For more information on each offering, please visit: CMake Support: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/support.html CMake Consulting: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/consulting.html CMake Training Courses: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/training.html Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
