Should operator overload methods be virtual?

[Leandro Lucarella]

Walter Bright, el  1 de diciembre a las 11:17 me escribiste:
> Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> >Walter Bright, el 28 de noviembre a las 13:31 me escribiste:
> >>retard wrote:
> >>>Is this again one of those features that is supposed to hide the
> >>>fact that dmd & optlink toolchain sucks? At least gcc can optimize
> >>>the calls in most cases where the operator is defined to be
> >>>virtual, but is used in non-polymorphic manner.
> >>The gnu linker (ld) does not do any optimizations of virtual call =>
> >>direct call. Optlink has nothing to do with it.
> >
> >The *new* GNU Linker (gold) does (with plug-ins, both GCC and LLVM
> >provides plug-ins for gold to do LTO).
> >
> >See:
> >http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/LinkTimeOptimization
> >http://llvm.org/docs/GoldPlugin.html
> 
> I don't see that particular one in the links.

Well, I was talking about link-time optimization in general, not virtual
call elimination in particular :). I don't know exactly what kind of
optimizations are supported currently, but bare in mind this is all very
new (Gold and the LTO plug-ins)...

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Que hacés, ratita?
- Espero un ratito...