From: "David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "Dave Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> 001201c2ce26$533cae40$6501a8c0@penguin">news:001201c2ce26$533cae40$6501a8c0@penguin...
> > [...]
> > It's clear to me why that could happen. It could be just a simple-
> > minded rule to avoid viola
From: "David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "Dave Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> 008c01c2ce1f$87ca8620$6501a8c0@penguin">news:008c01c2ce1f$87ca8620$6501a8c0@penguin...
> > [...]
> > What do you mean that its *place* in the hierarchy affects the size? If
> > it's in the hierarchy,
On Thursday, February 06, 2003 3:13 PM [GMT+1=CET],
David B. Held <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> b1m57m$702$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b1m57m$702$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > [...]
> > > > I mean, the optimally_inherit eliminates the empty bases, a
"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [...]
>> The problem arises if the user passes an empty policy class with
>> non-trivial ctor or dtor: then the fact that it's being
>> constructed/
> -Original Message-
> From: David Abrahams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> "David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Well, I want to at least give the VC++ guys a few days to see if
> > they say anything. I posted a question on a M$ newsgroup. I
> > think I did the first time ar
"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> But the compiler knows this too. So if the c'tor and d'tor are both
> trivial, why not just optimize them away?
Double Sigh.
AFAICT you're conflating two things, the EBO and optimization of
t
"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [...]
>> Borland is particularly strange about layout.
>
> Suprisingly enough, BCB 5 has maintained the optimal size throughout
> all the changes.
>
"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [...]
>> Up to a point. I know MWerks is object-compatible in the
>> single-inheritance case (for the sake of COM and MFC), but not
>> if there's M
"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [...]
>> What question are you asking? I think all NDAs on the vc7.1 betas
>> are expired, so I can just run a test...
>
> Actually, I wanted someo
"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [...]
>> C) Make sure the first base class of smart_ptr is the one that
>> manages destruction of its resources:
> I was actually thinking
"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, I want to at least give the VC++ guys a few days to see if
> they say anything. I posted a question on a M$ newsgroup. I
> think I did the first time around, too, and they didn't. It would be
> really cool if, say, Jason Shirk offered some ins
11 matches
Mail list logo
