NightStrike wrote:
> On 9/18/07, Ioannis Gyftos <jgif@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I assume that this is the correct mailing list to ask this, as opposed
>> to a Cpp list, since it appears to me that this is compiler-related.
>>
>> 1)
>>
>> class foo
>> {
>> int priv;
>> public:
>> void bar();
>> };
>>
>> Supposing i am writing the definition of foo::bar, and i want to change
>> the private member priv. Is "this->priv=1" equal to "priv=1", as far as
>> performance goes? I assume that since there is an explicit dereference
>> of *this, there is no performance overhead so both would be equal,
>> however i could not locate any documentation on this (and typing "this"
>> on search engines does not weild the best results...). Is this correct?
>>
>> (I am asking because of a suggested policy to refer to members of
>> classes with "this->", in an effort to distinguish them from
>> non-members, something like priv_)
>>
>> 2)
>>
>> #undef DEBUG_FLAG
>>
>> void foo()
>> {
>> #ifdef DEBUG_FLAG
>> DoSomeStuff();
>> #endif
>> }
>>
>> inline void bar()
>> {
>> #ifdef DEBUG_FLAG
>> DoSomeStuff();
>> #endif
>> }
>>
>> int main(...)
>> {
>> foo();
>> bar();
>> }
>>
>> Consider the foo function, where after the pre-compiler step, the
>> compiler would know that the body of a given function is empty. Is the
>> call to that function included in the built .o? (call/ret, possibly
>> push/pop, etc). I am asking because such a thing would add (usually?)
>> unnecessary overhead.
>>
>> <snip>
Best way to tell if they're equivalent, or what they do is to build with
the -S option to see the assembler output.
