home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: nntp-xfer-2.csn.net!yuma!steffend
- From: steffend@lamar.colostate.edu (Dave Steffen)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c
- Subject: Re: Performance: C vs. C++
- Followup-To: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c
- Date: 30 Jan 1996 17:23:01 GMT
- Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523
- Message-ID: <4elk5l$3f2q@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>
- References: <30F6BAAC.12B5@iastate.edu> <4da9pn$a45@news.bridge.net> <4dnpl2$c8g@classic.iinet.com.au> <3105E9DC.1BE3@enermet.fi> <DLr46y.7rH@txnews.amd.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: glitch.physics.colostate.edu
- X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
-
- Bret Patterson (faustus) wrote: (in part)
-
- > The only thing of C++ that I know causes alot of overhead is
- > exceptions. But other forms of error checking are available and
- > exceptions can also be optimized/minimized.
-
- I believe that exceptions only produce overhead _if_ an
- exception is thrown; otherwise, there shouldn't be _any_ overhead.
-
- At least, this is what Stoustrup says _should_ be the
- case. Whether or not your compiler is up to the task is another
- matter. ;-)
-
- /\
- \/
-
- Dave Steffen No, his mind is not for rent
- Dept. of Physics To any God or Government
- Colorado State University Always hopeful, yet discontent
- steffend@lamar.colostate edu He knows changes aren't permanent-
- But change is...
- "Speak softly...
- ... and carry a black belt!" -Neal Peart / RUSH
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-
-