Cleaned up C++

[deadalnix via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 22 April 2015 at 20:36:12 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
> Is it even possible to contrive a case where
> 1) The default initialisation stores are technically dead and
> 2) Modern compilers can't tell they are dead and elide them and
> 3) Doing the initialisation has a significant performance 
> impact?
>
> The boring example is "extra code causes instruction cache 
> misses".

I'd say it is very unlikely. If the compiler wan't see it, then 
it means the code is non trivial, and if it is non trivial, it is 
not an extra store that is going to make any difference.