Re: Postfix is slower than postfix: how likely?

It has been said for a long time that we should prefer the
prefix increment/decrement operator to the postfix because the
former is never slower and sometimes it can be faster; e.g.:
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/operator-overloading.html#faq-13.15

Now I wonder: how likely are the cases where you suffer
significant performance loss because you use postfix instead
of prefix? Is there any benchmark that tells postfix can be
measurably slower than prefix?

I know I can build a class that takes arbitrarily long to copy
to show that postfix can be slower, but it's not usual to have
increment operators for such classes (especially in loops,
where we worry about performances most). Most of the time we
use the operators for built-in types and iterators, both of
which are (supposed to be) cheap to copy. Moreover, contrary
to my expectation, testing with g++-3.4.4 -S -O revealed no
difference at all in the assembly outputs, between

     for (container::iterator i = c.begin(); i != c.end(); ++i)

and

     for (container::iterator i = c.begin(); i != c.end(); i++)

for any container type in the standard library.