Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: August 2001:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Map coordinate cleanups.
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Map coordinate cleanups.

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: Kevin Brown <kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Ross W. Wetmore" <rwetmore@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Vasco Alexandre Da Silva Costa <vasc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Map coordinate cleanups.
From: "Ross W. Wetmore" <rwetmore@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 18:57:09 -0400

At 03:24 PM 01/08/19 -0700, Kevin Brown wrote:
>Ross W. Wetmore <rwetmore@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> The total run times for an exactly identical game show an overall
>> 25% cost (9 min vs 12 min) for functions over macros for a small
>> set of the common ones. One could probably refine this by playing
>> with the set to see which were the key ones.
>
>Hmm...yes, but is this for *regular* function calls or for *inline*
>ones?  That's what really needs to be tested, though inline functions
>might not be available on some of the platforms that would likely be
>most affected by these things (the Amiga, in particular)...

I would not expect any significant difference between inline functions
and macros. I think the issues here are of style and compatibility. 

Macros do work everywhere, inlined functions may not. There are some
advantages to using inlined functions as they don't have quite the set
of restrictions that macros do. There is less subjective noise in 
arriving at suitable names for inlined functions, etc.

Cheers,
RossW

>-- 
>Kevin Brown                                          kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>    It's really hard to define what "unexpected behavior" means when you're
>                       talking about Windows




[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]