On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:16 +0100, Vincent Torri wrote :
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009, Brett Nash wrote: > >>> Also, doing sizeof() is a compiler directive so does not incur any > >>> performance hits...plus it matches the rest of EFL. > >> using a macro does not involved any performance hit too as PATH_MAX > >> is directly replaced by its value before the compilation. > > Yes, but it's a damn big performance hit when someone changes one size, > > but not the other and the whole thing falls over in a steaming > > heap... ;-) > if someone changes the size of the buffer without looking how the buffer > is used, it should stop coding and try to be cabinetmaker of fisherman Of course. However, not using the buffer size directly avoids unnecessary code changes, no matter how carefully you check the code. So far, I've yet to see any reasonable argument as to why you're seemingly so hostile to this change. Regards, -- Albin Tonnerre
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev
_______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
