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>