From -2684256189051401699
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: f78e5,50f0ad542032bb80
X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1991-08-30 13:08:15 PST
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!taumet!steve
From: steve@taumet.com (Stephen D. Clamage)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Subject: Re: It's a lot worse than it sounds (was Re: The problem with temp...)
Keywords: nasty ugly pain operators strings owiee
Message-ID: <931@taumet.com>
Date: 30 Aug 91 18:12:31 GMT
References: <15751@goofy.Apple.COM> <15848@goofy.Apple.COM> <20797@alice.att.com> <1991Aug29.230533.22972@agate.berkeley.edu>
Organization: Taumetric Corporation, San Diego
Lines: 17

jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) writes:

|In article <20797@alice.att.com> ark@alice.UUCP () writes:
|>So can some compilers -- the call to the copy constructor can
|>often be optimized away.  This is especially likely if the
|>function in question is inline.

|I took your course a year and a half ago, Andy, and that's what you
|told us.  Unfortunately, no one has taught cfront (as of version 2.1)
|how to do it, even in simple cases like the following:

There are alternatives to cfront.  Oregon C++, for example (a product
of my company) does optimize away the copy constructor and temp in this
case.  It is available on many popular platforms, including Sun-4.
-- 

Steve Clamage, TauMetric Corp, steve@taumet.com