Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 1:27 PM, grauzone <n...@example.net> wrote:
Why not use scope to allocate the class on the stack?
For everything else, I agree with Donald Knuth (if he really said that...)
That's fine too, and would fit in with his needs to implement
interfaces. But again, if he's worried about caching some parameters
but not worried about the overhead of virtual calls.. something's off.
Or he's caching some very big/complex parameters in the code he's
actually writing... maybe. That said: do we have any assurance that,
were the functor class tagged as 'final', the call would cease to be
virtual? If so, then the only extra cost on the call is that of the
hidden "this" sitting in ESI. I still don't care for the memory
allocation involved, personally, but if these are long-lived functors
that may not be a major problem. (Ie, if he calls foo(?,X) a million
times, the cost of allocating one object is amortized into nearly nothing.)
-- Chris Nicholson-Sauls
