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: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Vasco Alexandre Da Silva Costa <vasc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Map coordinate cleanups.
From: Gaute B Strokkenes <gs234@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 00:59:56 +0200

On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Raimar Falke <hawk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 17, 2001 at 10:58:54AM -0700, Kevin Brown wrote:
>> > 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...
> 
> Hmm...of these the Amiga is probably the most trouble, in part
> because the compiler might not support inline functions but mainly
> because it's no longer subject to Moore's Law.  Does gcc run on it?
> If so, problem solved.  Be nice to know what compilers people are
> using to build Freeciv under it, and whether or not they support
> inline functions.

SAS C supports inline.  Dunno about VBCC.

> I'd think the BeOS compiler could handle inline functions, but speak
> from ignorance.  Anyone know?

BeOS uses GCC, so yes.

> VMS???  There isn't even a client for that, is there?  How much does
> inlining and macros help the server under that platform?  Is gcc
> available for it?

You may have noticed the vms directory in the source tree...

> How many people are running Freeciv under it?

Many enough to produce patches to make it run; I guess that is enough.

> VMS might be a small enough group that it's not worth using macros
> just for it.

I'm pretty sure that Digital C supports inline functions.

Now, from a configury point of view, there is a AC_C_INLINE macro that
takes care of business for all platforms that use autoconf.

So I guess there's no good reason not to use inline functions in
general.  The last time that this was discussed the point was made
that current GCC versions (prior to 3.0) expand inline functions at a
very late stage in the compilation process and will therefore miss
optimization opportunities that it would not miss if a macro was
used.  The only way we will ever know for sure if this makes a
difference is if someone tries it both ways and profile the result.
(Hint, hint.)

-- 
Big Gaute                               http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~gs234/
I'm definitely not in Omaha!


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