On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Chad Fraleigh <[email protected]> wrote: > The other thing is since CPUDeviceTask is already OO-based, rather > than doing checks each time an optimizable method is called to > determine what implementation to use, wouldn't it be cleaner to make > CPUDeviceTask semi-abstract and create three sub-classes (e.g. > BasicCPUDeviceTask, SSE2CPUDeviceTask, SSE3CPUDeviceTask) with each > custom impl and just have task_add() [or something] decide which to > create?
Oops.. drop the 'Task' suffixes from those comments. I saw CPUDeviceTask being declared mid way through CPUDevice and thought the methods after it where in that class instead. This is a _very_ confusing place to declare another class! -Chad _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
