From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-11-13 09:15:57
Giovanni Piero Deretta wrote:
> On Nov 13, 2007 3:19 AM, Jeff Garland <jeff_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> That 'irrelevant stack manipulation code' isn't irrelevant at all...it's the
>> function call overhead cost and would likely *not exist* in a fully static
>> version. Same with the stuff right before the return.
>>
>
> Actually the stack manipulation is for the test function, not for the
> bound checking function, so, as Robert said, it is completely
> irrelevant in this context. In fact the __Z4testv: is just that, the
> mangled name of the test function.
>
> <snip>...
>
> From a cursory look I can se no use of function pointers, nor I would
> expect it: the bounds are knonw at compile time so there is no need of
> dynamic dispatch. The framework seems to allow dynamic (runtime)
> bounds, but even in that case, i see no need for dynamic dispatch.
Ok, fair enough. I must have some misunderstanding of the implementation b/c
I don't see how the function call can be optimized away by the compiler when
the function pointer can be set at runtime. Anyway, I'm satisfied that it's
efficient as possible.
Jeff