icefox tests issues

[Dario Massarin]

On Wednesday 20 October 2004 20:21, Zack Rusin wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 October 2004 13:35, Matt Rogers wrote:
> > AFAIK, using it++ in Qt/KDE is worse because a temporary object is
> > created, but i could be _completely_ wrong. So this _might_ (very
> > slim possibility) cause a speedup, but caching the value of end()
> > might have more effect.
>
> This is not really true for complex types.
> For example:
> class A {
>  class Itr {
>   Itr operator++(int) {
>    Itr tmp = *this;
>    ++(*this);
>    return tmp;
>   }
>  };
> };
> Now in order to optimize this we would need to have intimate knowledge
> of what the copy constructor on those bad boys do. If we would have
> even the simplest code in there like
> "... ++globalCopies; ... " where globalCopies is some static var then
> we're done. So essentially for C++ programs compilers optimize the
> post-increment only for basic types. Everything else is either not
> touched at all or just very loosely checked and you should never depend
> that you even have a shot at compiler optimizing it for you.
>
> Zack

And big thanks to you, Zack who made me discover this topics a lot of time ago 
with a very useful guide :-) 
Since then I wrote all my code with this in mind. 
I propose to remember everyone, once again, the existence of these tips&tricks 
becouse it seems someone doesn't know them, yet.

Have a nice day!
	Dario