3 ms·
I suppose it depends on your application. I worked in embedded devices where stack was limited and the compiler was .... less than reliable about how it would m
by anitil 2y ago
I suppose it depends on your application. I worked in embedded devices where stack was limited and the compiler was .... less than reliable about how it would manage passing a large struct to your function, which is why I mentioned passing in a pointer instead
- ranger_danger 2y agoyes a pointer to struct would be acceptable as well
- RossBencina 2y agoIn 1998 perhaps. It wouldn't be acceptable to today's C++ value-semantics crowd. Are you sure that you want to take the indirection penalty? or that the compiler will optimise it away?
- BodkinsOdds 2y agoC++ is already so reliant on optimizing `const&` parameters that I can't imagine why you wouldn't use them if you happen to be stuck with a shitty embedded toolchain (or MSVC) that can't be relied on to pass struct parameters efficiently.
- gpderetta 2y agoIf stack space usage is an issue, then it means that the struct is already being passed by hidden pointer (as opposed to using a register passing calling convention). Making the pointer explicit won't have any effect on performance (but it will on semantics).