Hi Jim. > Yes, that was the point of my original question. I was asking how you > felt about the dead code, apologies that it took so long to get on the > same page. I don't have a strong opinion there, I was just making you > aware that there was more dead code. Another option would be to move > just the switch statement into a secondary shared function which might > be small enough not to trigger that compiler bug. > > But, I'll leave those decisions up to you. I was just pointing out > that > you missed some potentially dead code...
Oh, I see. Well, I wasn't aware of it before you asked, so thanks for pointing it out. I guess I'll remove it. As for moving the switch in its own function, I think the compiler would just inline it and then we'd be in the same spot. Shall I push? Thank you, Denis. ----- Original Message ----- > Hi Denis, > > > ...jim > > On 3/10/2011 6:38 AM, Denis Lila wrote: > >> [Resending due to bounces...] > >> > >> On 3/9/2011 5:56 AM, Denis Lila wrote: > >>>> lines 1002& 1083 - can breaking points of a cubic generate quad > >>>> segments and vice versa? > >>> > >>> No, the functions that generate the offset curves can only > >>> return a line or a curve of the same degree as the curve > >>> whose offset they're generating. > >> > >> Then why does the code to handle the opposing curve type exist in > >> these > >> functions? > >> > >> ...jim > > > > Because everything was copied from somethingTo, which had to handle > > both types of curves, and I applied constant propagation and dead > > code elimination very mechanically for fear or breaking something. > > Should I remove the cases that never execute? > > > > Regards, > > Denis.
