Hi Martin, On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Martin Ettl wrote: > i have checked the current git head with cppcheck ( a static code > analysis tool, http://sourceforge.net/projects/cppcheck/). It is an > allready very powerfull tool that makes some suggestions, how to improve > performance of the code. > > Here is a snipped of the scan: > .... > [./src/mds/MDSMap.h:236]: (possible style) Pre-Incrementing variable 'p' is > preferred to Post-Incrementing > [./src/mds/MDSMap.h:256]: (possible style) Pre-Incrementing variable 'p' is > preferred to Post-Incrementing > [./src/mds/MDSMap.h:263]: (possible style) Pre-Incrementing variable 'p' is > preferred to Post-Incrementing > [./src/mds/MDSMap.h:280]: (possible style) Pre-Incrementing variable 'p' is > preferred to Post-Incrementing > [./src/mds/MDSMap.h:291]: (possible style) Pre-Incrementing variable 'p' is > preferred to Post-Incrementing > [./src/include/LogEntry.h:100]: (possible style) Pre-Incrementing variable > 'p' is preferred to Post-Incrementing > [./src/ceph.cc:317]: (possible style) Pre-Incrementing variable 'p' is > preferred to Post-Incrementing > [./src/mds/MDSMap.h:247]: (possible style) Use failed.empty() instead of > failed.size() to guarantee fast code. > .... > > > Please refer the attached patch that chanes a few of this suggestions. > What do you think about this? Does it boost the performance?
I don't think it'll affect performance in these cases, but stylistically it's an improvement, so I'll apply it. Did cppcheck have anything else to say? Thanks! sage ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev _______________________________________________ Ceph-devel mailing list Ceph-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ceph-devel
