Marc Glisse <marc.gli...@inria.fr> writes:
> On Mon, 5 Oct 2015, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
>>> I do believe you still have some code growth since the inline dconst
>>> function always expands code that will initialize the constant. IMO
>>> that's not desirable.
>>
>> I don't disagree. I find dconst0 much easier to read than dconst<0> ().
>> In some ways I was posting the patch to show how bad it could be :-)
>>
>> If we're prepared to pay the cost of unconditional load-time
>> initialisation, we could have:
>>
>> template <int N>
>> struct dconst_value
>> {
>> dconst_value () { ...set up value ...; }
>> REAL_VALUE_TYPE value;
>> };
>>
>> template <int N>
>> const REAL_VALUE_TYPE &
>> dconst<T> (void)
>> {
>> static dconst_value<N> x;
>> return x.value;
>> }
>
> Why are you calling this load-time initialization? As far as I know, such
> a static object is still initialized lazily (with all the overhead this
> implies). Did you mean to make value a static member of dconst_value?
Bah, of course, sorry.
