[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Map coordinate cleanups.

[Raimar Falke <hawk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Aug 17, 2001 at 10:58:54AM -0700, Kevin Brown wrote:
> Raimar Falke <hawk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I haven't looked at the assembler output but is possible that the
> > compiler removes the loop completely. The actual execution times
> > however are too large for a body without the loop.
> 
> I'm quite sure the compiler didn't optimize the loop out, otherwise
> execution would have been instantaneous.  In other words, what you
> said.  :-)
> 
> > > > Besides, compilers can't optimize functions as well as inlined code.
> > > 
> > > Is this true of inlined functions?  I have suspicions that it is.  I'm
> > > not sure how to devise a testcase for this...
> > 
> > AFAIK the current compilers can only inline methods if the compiler
> > sees the method body at compile time. This leads to such ugly header
> > files as seen in some C++ code.
> 
> Not much difference between that and macros, is there?  Especially
> macros of the variety we're talking about.  There's no problem with
> namespaces, either: just declare the functions static in the headers
> (but we all knew this already, so why am I saying it?  :-).
> 
> I'd argue that, even if the function is in the header, it's *still*
                      _IF_
> cleaner looking than the equivalent macro (for multiline macros, at
> least), if only because the macro has to have a continuation character
> after each line.

Ack.

> This stuff only becomes an issue when you're dealing with a compiler
> that can't do inline functions.  I doubt there are many of those that
> matter anymore...

Caution. What about amiga, vms and beos? Yes you can just declare: you
don't matter anymore...

        Raimar

-- 
 email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 "Understanding is a three-edged sword; 
  your side, their side, and the truth."
    -- a well-known Vorlon