Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 20 Mar 1997 08:17:28 -0700
From:      Warner Losh <imp@village.org>
To:        James Mansion <james@wgold.demon.co.uk>
Cc:        hackers@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Barb problem, FOUND 
Message-ID:  <E0w7jaw-0002sI-00@rover.village.org>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 20 Mar 1997 19:57:21 GMT." <333196A1.51F3@wgold.demon.co.uk> 
References:  <333196A1.51F3@wgold.demon.co.uk>  <332BC869.37B7@wgold.demon.co.uk> <199703160612.XAA13150@rover.village.org> <199703171856.LAA07505@rover.village.org> 

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <333196A1.51F3@wgold.demon.co.uk> James Mansion writes:
: Just because a particular compiler is full of bugs doesn't mean that a
: construct allowed by the language spec is dubious.  No way.

I misspoke myself.  There are several compilers that don't handle this
construct correctly.  They generally don't whine about it, but they
generally do generate horrible code for this case.  We saw a few years
ago that by removing the inline virtuals we had binaries that were
500k! smaller.  We also found with OI that lots of compilers had
subtle bugs with inline virtuals.

Given all the problems that multiple compilers have implementing it
effectively, I think that it is as least unwise to use the construct.
In my book, that makes it dubious, but others will have a different
opinion.

Warner



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E0w7jaw-0002sI-00>