On Thu, 28 Jul 2011, Stefan Seifert wrote: > On Thursday 28 July 2011 01:00:10 Hal V. Engel wrote: > >> But there is one minor and very common issue with the code that should be >> fixed. In the for loop >> >> for (..; ..; j++) >> >> should be >> >> for (..; ..; ++j) >> >> if you use j++ the compiler has to make a copy of j with each iteration of >> the loop but if you use ++j it does not have to make a copy. This will >> make the loop more efficient although only by a small amount. > > Are you sure about that? I just tried it with a little example and at least > gcc compiles both variants to the exact same assembly code. Tried it with and > without -O2. > That would freak me out. Doesn't "++j" mean "increment j, then test" whereas "j++" means "test j, then increment"?
g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.simpits.org/geneb - The Me-109F/X Project Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_! Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Got Input? Slashdot Needs You. Take our quick survey online. Come on, we don't ask for help often. Plus, you'll get a chance to win $100 to spend on ThinkGeek. http://p.sf.net/sfu/slashdot-survey _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
