Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #7598
| From | Thomas Boell <tboell@domain.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c++ |
| Subject | Re: header only C++ code or not? |
| Date | 2011-07-07 19:38 +0200 |
| Organization | albasani.net |
| Message-ID | <20110707193818.3b345f93@arcadia> (permalink) |
| References | <16efe2a8-09b1-4d1d-9550-f6330de89718@j15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com> <20110707142407.4e2f0d3c@arcadia> <iv4ag9$1bku$1@news.ett.com.ua> <almarsoft.1152109586541198850@news.eternal-september.org> |
On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 11:40:22 -0400 Garrett Hartshaw <ghartshaw@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 14:57:44 +0200, "Balog Pal" <pasa@lib.hu> wrote: > > "Thomas Boell" <tboell@domain.invalid> > > > > > > In addition to what others said, putting implementation in header > files > > > can give the compiler better chances for optimization and > inlining. If > > > the implementation is in a separate compilation unit, the compiler > > > can't inline because it doesn't know the function body. > > > > Nothing enforces the classic "dumb linker" model. > > Newer gcc versions have the -flto option for this purpose. I don't > know about other compilers. Nice. I didn't know about GIMPLE and the -flto flag. It seems to be rather new (released in May 2010 with gcc 4.5 apparently). If it's true that code using LTO is effectively compiled twice [1], then that could be a reason why one would not want to use it. [1] http://lwn.net/Articles/387447/
Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
header only C++ code or not? kathy <yqin_99@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-06 14:27 -0700
Re: header only C++ code or not? "Andrew Holme" <ah@nospam.com> - 2011-07-06 22:42 +0100
Re: header only C++ code or not? "Bo Persson" <bop@gmb.dk> - 2011-07-07 19:17 +0200
Re: header only C++ code or not? Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2011-07-06 17:23 -0500
Re: header only C++ code or not? Noah Roberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 16:14 -0700
Re: header only C++ code or not? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 15:35 -0500
Re: header only C++ code or not? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 15:45 -0500
Re: header only C++ code or not? "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-07 01:24 +0100
Re: header only C++ code or not? Thomas Boell <tboell@domain.invalid> - 2011-07-07 14:24 +0200
Re: header only C++ code or not? "Balog Pal" <pasa@lib.hu> - 2011-07-07 14:57 +0200
Re: header only C++ code or not? Garrett Hartshaw <ghartshaw@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 11:40 -0400
Re: header only C++ code or not? Thomas Boell <tboell@domain.invalid> - 2011-07-07 19:38 +0200
Re: header only C++ code or not? Garrett Hartshaw <ghartshaw@gmail.com> - 2011-07-09 09:06 -0400
Re: header only C++ code or not? Thomas Boell <tboell@domain.invalid> - 2011-07-09 16:23 +0200
Re: header only C++ code or not? "Bo Persson" <bop@gmb.dk> - 2011-07-07 19:16 +0200
csiph-web