Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: March 2002:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [RFC][Patch] Inline

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [RFC][Patch] Inline

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: Jason Short <jdorje@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: [RFC][Patch] Inline
From: Raimar Falke <hawk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 14:36:37 +0100
Reply-to: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 08:24:29AM -0500, Jason Short wrote:
> Raimar Falke wrote:
> > There was a major network breakdown (three universities and ten other
> > research institutes were offline). So I could commit patches. I took
> > the time to work in the performance front.
> > 
> > The attached patch is a first cut on inlining functions. It does:
> Wow, that's a lot.  Most of it is just moving code around, though; only 
> a little bit changes code (e.g. from macro to function).  Do you plan to 
> commit it all at once (if you do commit it)?

Things can be seperated. But first it has to be complete (and this
includes a test with at least another compiler besides gcc).

> > If these results can be beaten by macros I would like to get such a
> > patch to get a look at the asm code.
> When we tested this before, I compared the results from changing 
> normalize_map_pos from a macro to a function.  It ended up being 
> slightly faster as a macro, although i do not have assembly code handy :-).
> In any case, there is a tradeoff for using a macro: the code becomes 
> significantly less readible, both in the frontend (interface) and 
> backend (which is also in the interface...).  And you know my opinion on 
> that.


 email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 "That's fundamental game play!  My main enemy is *ALWAYS* fighting 
  a 4-front war.  I make sure of it!"
    -- Tony Stuckey, freeciv-dev

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