Browse thread
RE: [Caml-list] Bug? Printf, %X and negative numbers
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Falk Hueffner <falk.hueffner@s...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Bug? Printf, %X and negative numbers |
Brian Hurt <brian.hurt@qlogic.com> writes: > So now you a dozen different specializations of foo<>. All almost > identical. Say bye bye to any code locality. And this isn't even > mentioning badly designed templates, like the one I found (no > kidding!) for an array template that took it's length as a > parameter. The compiler had to produce different specializations of > the code for arrays length 3 and arrays length 4. You didn't choose a very good example. The compiler will certainly inline both operator[] and .size(), which will result in probably smaller and certainly faster code. -- Falk ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners