Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
"Felipe Magno de Almeida" <felipe.m.almeida@gmail.com> wrote in message news:a2b17b60612151137o20340d10i5c2a2f18e293ca5c@mail.gmail.com...
On 12/15/06, Gennadiy Rozental <gennadiy.rozental@thomson.com> wrote:
[snipped]
Let's say you have record with 10 optional elements. tuple based solution will end up compiling in anything from 1 to 10! different versions of the same function, while offline version will be only one. Also in case if you always want output in the same 10 column format I dont see easy way to implement it using tuples. We can take an arbitrary Fusion tuple and iterate it. Why should we be limited to a fixed number of elements?!
Also, only the templates that really get instantiated end up in the binary So if I have 100 different calls to the output function I will endup with 100 different instantiations instantiation, right? And even in case of inlining my code size would be 100 times more? I believe that most tuple functions when inlined should occuppy almost the same as a function call, so I dont belive your estimative would be correct. With register allocation playing right, there would be less, or none, need to save registers and the results being used directly too, the whole using function could be even smaller when using the inlined one.
It's possible. Still there code size will be significantly bigger in comparison with offline implementation, right?
No, there is zero overhead. See my other post. Fusion vector, for example is as fast as a struct. Why? because it *IS* as struct. So, accesses to its members, for example is as fast as: s.member Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net