[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2007/01/29]
> Let's make it simple: did you actually see it /done/? I tried it with > gcc 3.3.1 on x86 and exceptions do translate to overhead (I don't know > x86 assembly either, but I can see when 2 additional instructions are > emitted). Green Hills on ARM is worse, trust me. Let's say I don't > care for the monstrous inflation of data. Let's say I don't care that > the generated assembly code looks like dog vomit. Can you name a > platform where no extra instructions in the normal flow path are > generated when exceptions are enabled? Why are you using C++ on hardware where you're coding that close to the performance edge anyway? Even when I was doing railroad safety systems on the Z80 a few percent overhead in total execution time wasn't going to push me over the limit. Your comment about ARM and automotive applications implies you're doing real-time work, and if you're running real-time code where that percentage of overhead will make you slip deadlines... well, I hope it's not safety-critical. Hell, if you're coding realtime in C++ I hope it's not safety-critical. :P
Generated at 23:01 on 06 Feb 2007 by mariachi 0.52