From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jason Merrill <jason@cygnus.com>
To: pderbysh@usa.net (Paul Derbyshire)
Cc: egcs@cygnus.com
Subject: Re: Code gen question
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 22:53:00 -0000
Message-ID: <u990e3kxq8.fsf@yorick.cygnus.com>
References: <3.0.6.32.19990212180551.00841100.cygnus.egcs@pop.netaddress.com>
X-SW-Source: 1999-02n/msg00460.html
Message-ID: <19990228225300.Y_O6wuUx5KI5MObJZdBT_5tI22jSWiFNXm3WrRWvqUA@z>

>>>>> Paul Derbyshire <pderbysh@usa.net> writes:

 > Which will cause cc1plus to generate better code?
 > inline int myclass::myfunc (int j) { return j*j*j; }

 > inline int myclass::myfunc (const int &j) { return j*j*j; }

 > My guess would be the latter, since the latter when inlined won't make a
 > copy of the argument passed.

Neither will the former.  The difference is that the latter refers to its
arguments address, which impairs optimization (though not as much as it
used to).  Absolutely pass scalars by value.

Jason