> From: "Lars Gullik Bjønnes" <larsbj@[...].org>


> "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams@[...].com> writes:

> | From: "Lars Gullik Bjønnes" <larsbj@[...].org>
> >
> >> When testing this and the prev. version with gcc, I get a 2:3
> >> perfomance difference in favour of the traditional solution.
> >>
> >> Gcc 3.1 -O3
> >> ./postincr
> >> Number1: 6650000
> >> Number2: 9900000
> >
> | That's not surprising. What happens when you try the version that
actually
> | returns the postfix_incrementer<number> instead of the number?
> 
> No difference.

I also wondered about all the hoopla and eagerness of adding this to Boost,
why nobody had bothered to check if it improved performance, in practice.


Regards,

Terje


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost