On 12-12-16 06:06 PM, Siarhei Siamashka wrote: > On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 15:34:57 -0500 > Behdad Esfahbod <beh...@behdad.org> wrote: > >> On 12-12-16 12:13 AM, Siarhei Siamashka wrote: >>> Any comments or ideas? Hopefully not a C vs. C++ flamewar :) >> >> I would go as far as suggesting that C++ becomes a requirement. I did that >> in >> HarfBuzz and never looked back. It's possible to use many useful features of >> the language (templates, etc) without linking to libstdc++, so from the >> user's >> point of view there's absolutely no difference between that kind of a library >> and a C library. > > One problem with these useful C++ features is that making use of them, > we are wilfully becoming the hostages of a compiler. But the real > existing compilers are struggling even to handle inline functions > without bugs and performance regressions: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54965 > > So I'm leaning to remain conservative and initially use C++ features > only as a debugging aid. Just like OpenMP, gcc vector extensions, > 128-bit float types and the other fancy compiler features are only > used (or proposed to be used) in the test suite.
You definitely have a point. However, this exact example is why I always thought Pixman in particular can make good use of templates. Because essentially that's what Pixman is: operation templates instantiated with lots of different options. Currently we just use always_inline and hope that the compiler does the right thing. With C++ those become template instantiations that have much more chance to be inlined and optimized. Incidentally, I think that's the approach Skia took. Anyway, just dropping ideas on the table. -- behdad http://behdad.org/ _______________________________________________ Pixman mailing list Pixman@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pixman
