The perf difference was due to the compiler being able to infer 'const' by way of 'static'.
Advocating 'static' when your actual intent is 'const' does less experienced readers a disservice; they will assume that 'static' is meant to make things faster, and be disappointed when it doesn't work for non-constant values.
I am not advocating static. I'm advocating for looking at what the compiler outputs when surprising behavior is encountered. The example is extracted from a larger piece of code, and I reported the minimal case as-is.
If anything, the title is meant to be read as "isn't it amusing that something apparently unrelated such as `static` causes a performance improvement".
That said, I have added a note clarifying this at top of the post now.
I thought you made your point neatly and succinctly. Code can be optimized on multiple levels; the compiled result is clearly more efficient. This lesson applies regardless of the language being compiled.
Comments
The perf difference was due to the compiler being able to infer 'const' by way of 'static'.
Advocating 'static' when your actual intent is 'const' does less experienced readers a disservice; they will assume that 'static' is meant to make things faster, and be disappointed when it doesn't work for non-constant values.
I am not advocating static. I'm advocating for looking at what the compiler outputs when surprising behavior is encountered. The example is extracted from a larger piece of code, and I reported the minimal case as-is.
If anything, the title is meant to be read as "isn't it amusing that something apparently unrelated such as `static` causes a performance improvement".
That said, I have added a note clarifying this at top of the post now.
I thought you made your point neatly and succinctly. Code can be optimized on multiple levels; the compiled result is clearly more efficient. This lesson applies regardless of the language being compiled.