[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: Steinar Bang <sb@metis.no>
- To: xml-dev@ic.ac.uk
- Date: 06 Dec 1999 09:34:57 +0100
>>>>> David Megginson <david@megginson.com>:
> Actually, I don't see any strong argument not to provide empty inline
> implementations for the handler callbacks:
Inlined virtuals will cause an instantiation of the vtable and the
function bodies in _every_ compilation unit the header file is
included into (ref. Scott Meyers "More Effective C++", Item 24 pp
118).
This is a size cost that can be easily avoided.
I'm also coming more and more to the conclusion that even trivial
non-virtual function bodies should not be inlined, _unless_ there is a
clear performance reason to do so.
This is because even trivial inlined function occasinally needs to be
changed and changing something in a headerfile causes recompilation.
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@ic.ac.uk)
|
