• bobef (8/8) Mar 25 2005 Last night I tried the profiling that was mentioned in recent posts and ...
• Ben Hinkle (5/16) Mar 25 2005 Did you compile with -inline? I don't know if that is compatible with -g...

bobef <bobef_member pathlink.com> writes:

Last night I tried the profiling that was mentioned in recent posts and it
really kicks ass if I may say :)... And this is where this suggestion came
from... It showed that setters/getters are wasting much time because they are
used often. It would be nice if there is some kind keyword that makes class
members readonly for 'outsiders', so it could be read directly but without
posibility to be modified if this is unwanted. But not like C consts which
everybody could modify just with a void* cast... Of couse it would be better
than nothing.

"Ben Hinkle" <ben.hinkle gmail.com> writes:

"bobef" <bobef_member pathlink.com> wrote in message 
news:d20n76$2c1u$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Last night I tried the profiling that was mentioned in recent posts and it
 really kicks ass if I may say :)... And this is where this suggestion came
 from... It showed that setters/getters are wasting much time because they 
 are
 used often. It would be nice if there is some kind keyword that makes 
 class
 members readonly for 'outsiders', so it could be read directly but without
 posibility to be modified if this is unwanted. But not like C consts which
 everybody could modify just with a void* cast... Of couse it would be 
 better
 than nothing.

Did you compile with -inline? I don't know if that is compatible with -gt. 
It would presumably inline all the property getters/setters that do nothing 
but access some private data.