Article View: comp.std.c++
Article #3266RE: Inherent C++ problem??
From: William McIlhagga
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 16:08
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 16:08
44 lines
2673 bytes
2673 bytes
Regarding the eliding of copy constructors, John Max Skaller wrote: > Completely irrelevent. The compiler is permitted to elide >the copy constructor anyhow. If this changes the observable behaviour >of you program it's your own fault that your code is not deterministic. There are a few points to note about "determinism": 1) The standard says that an implementation *may* get rid of some copy constructors; it does not demand it. Thus the indeterminism lies in the fact that the programmer does not know whether this has happened to their code, unless the compiler is kind enough to say so (compilers are the strong silent type, and don't usually tell you anything about what they're thinking) 2) Removing copy constructors is intended as an optimisation. But optimisations should never change the meaning of a program - that is, the program should produce the same results with and without the optimisation. Clearly, removing "irrelevant" copy constructors is a different kind of thing altogether. I think this part of the standard is a little dangerous. I accept that removing copy constructors is a useful optimisation however (though I haven't seen any benchmarks to show how big a speedup you get - perhaps someone could post some to convince us all that it's worthwhile). There are a few things that might improve the situation: 1) if an implemention removes a copy constructor, the standard should demand that it issues a warning message (if the user desires...). Though I guess most people will turn this warning off after a couple of hours, so maybe that's not so smart. 2) the standard should include some specified way of switching off the removal of copy constructors. If it's in the standard then it's transportable, so no problems there. Perhaps some ugly #pragma or something? Cheers, William McIlhagga william.mc@pi.se [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu. Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu. The moderation policy is summarized in http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html ]
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<199602060648.HAA19423@mail.pi.se>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!engnews1.Eng.Sun.COM!taumet!clamageShow Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!engnews1.Eng.Sun.COM!taumet!clamage From: william.mc@pi.se (William McIlhagga) Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: RE: Inherent C++ problem?? Date: 6 Feb 1996 16:08:35 GMT Organization: ? Approved: clamage@eng.sun.com (comp.std.c++) Message-ID: <199602060648.HAA19423@mail.pi.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: taumet.eng.sun.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: m1717@mail.pi.se (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 X-Lines: 40 Content-Length: 1855 Originator: clamage@taumet