On Friday 22 January 2016, Bogdan Vatra wrote: > On Friday 22 January 2016 10:55:34 Cristian Adam wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Marc Mutz <marc.m...@kdab.com> wrote: > > > I'm not sure about what outcome to expect, and I don't remember any > > > numbers > > > posted by anyone else, either. > > > > From the David Stone's Writing Robust Code > > <https://meetingcpp.com/tl_files/2014/talks/robust_code.pdf> page 34: > > > > Performance of exceptions when not thrown > > ● Tested on gcc 4.9.2 > > ● Numbers relative to ignoring errors > > ● With no destructors > > > > – 12.8% overhead for exceptions > > – 32.8% overhead for return codes > > > > ● With destructors > > > > – 6.3% overhead for exceptions > > – 18.7% overhead for return codes > > Hmm, so, using exceptions makes your code 12-20% faster. This is a good > thing, right?. Most probably the binary size will be slightly bigger, > let's see if it's 12-20% bigger (my hunch is that it will not be more than > 5% bigger). I'll do some tests this weekend and I'll share with you the > results. > > > And page 35: > > > > Performance of exceptions when thrown > > ● Tested on gcc 4.9.2 > > ● Numbers relative to ignoring errors > > ● With no destructors > > > > – 900% overhead for exceptions > > > > ● With destructors > > > > – 750% overhead > > As I said, exceptions are like *a life vest*, they should be used *only in > critical situations* not everywhere. > Using them anywhere, can break code everywhere as the number of return points and code paths immediately becomes near infinite. They shouldn't be used PERIOD.
'Allan _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
