On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Cliff Woolley wrote: > On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Ian Holsman wrote: > > > I'm just wondering if there is any kind of measureable performance > > benefit in keeping these as a macro vs putting them in a function > > (possibly inline if the compiler can support it). > > I'm quite sure there is a performance benefit, though admittedly I don't > have numbers on hand to support that at the moment. > > It's as simple as this: many of the operations, once you get rid of the > typecasts and other noise, optimize down to just a few adds/subtracts and > a few assignments. Four lines of code in most cases. Adding the overhead > of a function call (actually probably two or three function calls) for > each operation would be substantial. > > It just looks messy when you expand the macros because it all gets > squished on one line and because lots of noise gets shoved in. But you > could say that about most macros when read in fully expanded form.
I agree 100%. These macros are relatively simple, just doing a bunch of casting and pointer manipulation. The cost of putting those in functions would most likely be very high. A better question IMHO, is whether any of those macros can be made less complex. Ryan _______________________________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] 550 Jean St Oakland CA 94610 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
