Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!hplabs!hp-pcd!hplsla!jima
From: jima@hplsla.HP.COM (Jim Adcock)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Having constructors is expensive.
Message-ID: <6590140@hplsla.HP.COM>
Date: 5 Jun 89 17:50:24 GMT
References: <JEFFB.89May31002905@grace.cs.washington.edu>
Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA
Lines: 9

> For example, why couldn't a compiler pass a null
> function pointer to the vector new function, test in the vector new function
> whether or not to call that function, and then generate an inline for-loop
> with the inline X() constuctor to do the actual init?  Good optimizing
> backend C "code generators" would be smart enough to void the loop if the
> X() constructor is null.

Alternately, one could at least hope that a compiler would recognize a null
initialize, and just pass a null function pointer to the vector new function.