> those of you who read the commit logs will have been blasted > with huge commits in the FLTK 3.0 branch. Yes, I am actively > developing this again, and guess what, so far I believe I am > pretty successful.
Yes - I had noticed. I even wondered if I should grab a snapshot to try it, but decided to wait until the churn of check-ins stopped... I think you missed revising some copyright dates though! > This is how it works (plus some trickery): This all sounds very good. Is it OK for us to try it out on other hosts? > Overhead: FLTK1 and 2 code wil have one additional > indirection per call. Every widget has a sister widget which > is just one pointer in size. I am sure this is bearable for > most systems. Is it feasible that the compiler can resolve that indirection at compile time in some cases? I'm wondering if this additional indirection my be optimised away in some cases (so that it would actually be no worse at all...) though this seems unlikely for any reasonably complicated bit of code... -- Ian SELEX Galileo Ltd Registered Office: Sigma House, Christopher Martin Road, Basildon, Essex SS14 3EL A company registered in England & Wales. Company no. 02426132 ******************************************************************** This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its contents to any other person. ******************************************************************** _______________________________________________ fltk-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
