| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Comments:
<0> peterhu sugar dad :)
<1> rohyh, there's no one single cost-benefit analysis employed by every compiler
<0> sugar dads don't deal with inline stuff heh
<2> rohyh I'm pretty sure an empty method will be properly inlined
<1> compiler optimization is a very complicated topic on which i have no relevant experience, so i will defer you to google
<0> peterhu fairly for MS VS 6.0/2003 later would be handy.
<2> **** 6.0 and /2003
<1> **** em all!
<0> there should be a tech. docs. for analyzing the compiler inline/non-inline compiling benefits.
<2> rohyh why?
<0> vawjrwrk, just it depends on the costs.
<2> what depends on the costs
<0> if you have 6.0 and you can develop with it
<0> why would you get the 2003 ?
<2> nobody w/ 1/2 a brain develops w/ 6.0
<2> it's a piece of ****
<2> won't handle standard C++
<0> depends on the project and cost exceptations.
<2> has bugs in it's STL
<2> and I never suggested you get 2003
<0> yes you are right in that.
<3> What's wrong with 2003?
<1> 2003 compiler = free
<2> if you don't have at least SP4 installed it has known code generation problems
<0> vawjrwrk as i said before
<1> 2005 IDE + compiler = free
<2> 2005 compiler == free
<1> why would you stick with 6?
<4> HI
<2> and the bugs are gone from the STL
<0> if you manage with 6.0 the project you are workin on, the geting the 2004 is nonsense
<0> nevermind forget what i said
<4> some german speaking there?
<0> c147258 warum ?
<1> 6 isn't a c++ compiler, so many of us would be unable to use it
<4> hm
<4> nur so
<4> :)
<5> There si no disadvantage to getting 2005. Heck, VC 6 isn'T free, 2005 is!
Return to
#c++
or
Go to some related
logs:
#linux
#mirc
#AllNiteCafe
gatirta
#c
tinyxml unicode CSTring
#linux
dejo76
#london
#java
|
|